Who decides what medical research is done? Some genetic research can bring benefits to health, but is genetic research always conducted in the public interest?
- Press Releases
- GeneWatch PR: UK Biobank gets go-ahead: GeneWatch UK response 21st August 2006
- GeneWatch PR: UK Biobank based on false assumptions and a waste of public money, says GeneWatch 15th March 2006
- GeneWatch PR: GeneWatch UK calls on HFEA to make decisions on cloning in the open and not behind closed doors 29th September 2004
- GeneWatch PR: Main ethical questions about genetic sampling sidelined in biotech industry's favour: GeneWatch UK response to UK Biobank "Ethics and Governance Framework" 24th September 2003
- GeneWatch PR: Parliament finally talks about Biobank UK 2nd July 2002
- GeneWatch PR: GeneWatch response to Human Genetics Commission report on personal genetic information 21st May 2002
- GeneWatch PR: GeneWatch UK challenges the MRC, Wellcome Trust and Department of Health to allow an independent scientific peer review of Biobank UK 22nd April 2002
- GeneWatch PR: Doctors warned to press for safeguards before collecting patients' genes 14th January 2002
- Bioscience for Life? 6th April 2010
- Summary & Conclusions: History of proposal for data-sharing without consent 26th January 2009
- History of the proposal for data-sharing without consent 26th January 2009
- Giving Your Genes to Biobank UK: Questions to Ask 1st December 2001
- Briefing 35: Nutrigenomics: the future of nutrition? 1st March 2006
- Briefing 32: HUMAN CLONING AND STEM CELLS: unravelling the issues 2nd June 2005
- Briefing 23: Pharmacogenetics: Better, Safer Medicines? 1st July 2003
- MPs' Briefing: Human Genetics No. 3: Biobank UK – A Good Research Priority? 1st November 2002
- Briefing 14: Human Bio-Collections: Who Benefits from Gene Banking? 1st April 2001
- Briefing 12: Human Gene Therapy: A Cure for all Ills? 1st October 2000
- Briefing 11: Privatising Knowledge, Patenting Genes: The Race to Control Genetic Information 10th June 2000
- Bio-IT World: Geneticists Debate the Value of Genome-Wide Association Studies (15th April 2009)
- New York Times: Genes show limited value in predicting common diseases (15th April)
Scientific paper by GeneWatch's HM Wallace
This scientific paper looks at how data from twins and families is analysed. It concludes that the usual method is likely to exaggerate the importance of genetic differences in common diseases such as cancer. Breast cancer, for example, could often run in families because family members are exposed to the same environmental or lifestyle factors, rather than because relatives share some of their genes. If so, expensive research studies may be looking for "susceptibility genes" which do not exist or will be impossible to find.
- The Guardian: 500,000 people, a span of decades - and a waste of time and money?
- New Scientist: One million people, one medical gamble
The development of UK Biobank: Excluding scientific controversy from ethical debate
Abstract of an article by GeneWatch's Helen Wallace in the journal Critical Public Health. Please contact us if you would like a reprint of the article.
- The Observer: Scientist was paid consultant to tobacco firm.
- The Observer: Tobacco giant funds 'bad gene' hunt
- OpenDemocracy: A UK Biobank: Good for Public Health? 24th July 2003
- Consultation Responses
- GeneWatch submission to BBSRC consultation 24th July 2009
- Submission to the data-sharing review 11th July 2008
- Submission to House of Lords 'Genomic Medicine' Inquiry 21st April 2008
- GeneWatch submission to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
- Comments on the Report of the UK Population Biomedical Collection Protocol Development Workshop 1st October 2001