| Title |
Genomic Test Results and the Courtroom: The Roles of Experts and Expert Testimony
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1177/1073110516644211 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Edward Ramos, Shawneequa L. Callier, Peter B. Swann, Hosea H. Harvey |
| Abstract |
The rapid advancement from single-gene testing to whole genome sequencing has significantly broadened the type and amount of information available to researchers, physicians, patients, and the public in general. Much debate has ensued about whether genomic test results should be reported to research participants, patients and consumers, and at what stage we can be sure that existing evidence justifies their use in clinical settings. Courts and judges evaluating the utility of these results will not be immune to this uncertainty. As scholars increasingly explore the duty of care standards related to reporting genomic test results, it is timely to provide a framework for understanding how uncertainty about genetic and genomic tests influences evidentiary considerations in the court room. Here, we explore the subtleties and nuances of interpreting genetic data in an environment of substantial discord related to the value that individuals should place on genetic and genomic tests. In conjunction, we discuss the roles courts should play in qualifying experts, expert testimony, and genetic and genomic tests given the intricate and complex nature of genetic and genomic information. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 10% |
| Researcher | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 2 | 20% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 10% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2016.
All research outputs
#17,011,197
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#312
of 536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#314,902
of 531,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#435
of 553 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 531,673 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 553 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.