A new sociological imperative: Towards engaging with preimplantation genetic diagnosis

References

• Albury, R. (1999) The Politics of Reproduction: Beyond the Slogans Allen and Unwin: St Leonards.
   Google Scholar
• Ashcroft, R. (2003) ‘Bach to the future: Response to “Extending pre-implantation genetic diagnosis: Medical and non-medical uses”’ Journal of Medical Ethics 29:217-219.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity Sage: London.
   Google Scholar
• Bellamy, S. (2005) ‘Lives to save lives – the ethics of tissue typing’ Human Fertility 8(1):5-11.
   Google Scholar
• Bickerstaff, H.; Flinter, F.; Toh Yeong, C. and Braude, P. (2001) ‘Clinical application of preimplantation genetic diagnosis’ Human Fertility 4:24-30.
   Google Scholar
• Braude, P.; Pickering, S.; Flinter, F. and Mackie Olgivie, C. (2002) ‘Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis’ Nature Reviews 3:941-953.
   Google Scholar
• Brock, D. (2005) ‘Shaping future children: Parental rights and societal interests’ The Journal of Political Philosophy 13(4):377-398.
   Google Scholar
• Bunton, R. and Petersen, A. (2005) ‘Genetics and governance: An introduction’ in R. Bunton and A. Petersen (eds) Genetic Governance:
   Google Scholar
• Health, Risk and Ethics in the Biotech Era, pp. 1-27. Routledge: London.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, C. and Williamson, R. (2003) ‘Is there an ethical difference between pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and abortion?’ Journal of Medical Ethics 29:90-92.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, E. and Schiffman, J. (2000) ‘Attitudes towards genetic counselling and prenatal diagnosis among a group of individuals with physical disabilities’ Journal of Genetic Counselling 9(2):137-152.
   Google Scholar
• Condit, C. (1999) ‘How the public understands genetics: Non-deterministic and non-discriminatory interpretations of the “blueprint” metaphor’ Public Understandings of Science 8:169-180.
   Google Scholar
• Conrad, P. and Weinberg, D. (1996) ‘Has the gene for alcoholism been discovered three times since 1980? A news media analysis’ Perspectives on Social Problems 8:3-24.
   Google Scholar
• Conrad, P. (1997) ‘Public eyes and private genes: Historical frames, news constructions, and social problems’ Social Problems 44(2):139-154.
   Google Scholar
• Conrad, P. (1999) ‘A mirage of genes’ Sociology of Health and Illness 21(2):228-241.
   Google Scholar
• Domingues, J. (2004) ‘The future of human nature’ European Journal of Social Theory 7(3):405-410.
   Google Scholar
• Ehrich, K.; Williams, C.; Scott, R.; Sandall, J. and Farsides, B. (2006) ‘Social welfare, genetic welfare? Boundary-work in the IVF/PGD clinic’ Social Science and Medicine 63:1213-1224.
   Google Scholar
• Ettore, E. (1999) ‘Experts as ‘storytellers’ in reproductive genetics: Exploring key issues’ Sociology of Health and Illness 21(5):539-559.
   Google Scholar
• Ettore, E. (2005) ‘The sociology of the new genetics: Conceptualizing the links between reproduction, gender and bodies’ in R. Bunton and A. Petersen (eds) Genetic Governance: Health, Risk and Ethics in the Biotech Era, pp. 107-120. Routledge: London.
   Google Scholar
• Finkler, K.; Skrzynia, C. and Evans, J. (2003) ‘The new genetics and its consequences for family, kinship, medicine and medical genetics’ Social Science and Medicine 57:403-412.
   Google Scholar
• Franklin, S. and Roberts, C. (2006) Born and Made: An Ethnography of Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ.
   Google Scholar
• Fukuyama, F. (2003) Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution Profile Books: London.
   Google Scholar
• Gavaghan, C. (2003) ‘Use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to produce tissue donors: An irreconcilable dichotomy’ Human Fertility 6:23-25.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity Polity Press: Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age Polity Press: Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Gilding, M. (2002) ‘Families of the new millennium: Designer babies, cyber sex and virtual communities’ Family Matters 62(Winter):4-10.
   Google Scholar
• Gottweis, H. (2005) ‘Emerging forms of governance in genomics and post-genomics: Structures, trends, perspectives’ in R. Bunton and A. Petersen (eds) Genetic Governance: Health, Risk and Ethics in the Biotech Era, pp. 189-208. Routledge: London.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (2003) The Future of Human Nature Polity Press: Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Habgood, J. (2003) ‘A Christian approach to bioethics’ Human Fertility 6:137-141.
   Google Scholar
• Helen, I. (2005) ‘Risk management and ethics in high-tech antenatal care: The Finnish experience’ in R. Bunton and A. Petersen (eds) Genetic Governance: Health, Risk and Ethics in the Biotech Era, pp. 47-63 Routledge: London.
   Google Scholar
• Herbert, M. (2005) ‘More than code: From genetic reductionism to complex biological systems’ in R. Bunton and A. Petersen (eds) Genetic Governance: Health, Risk and Ethics in the Biotech Era, pp. 171-188. Routledge: London.
   Google Scholar
• Jallinoja, P. (2005) ‘Ethics of clinical genetics: The spirit of the profession and trials of suitability from 1970 to 2000’ in R. Bunton and A. Petersen (eds) Genetic Governance: Health, Risk and Ethics in the Biotech Era, pp. 31-45. Routledge: London.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, O. (2001) ‘Controlling consequences of preconception sex selection’ The American Journal of Bioethics 1(1):19-21.
   Google Scholar
• Kavoulakso, K. (2004) ‘Ruptured formalism: The challenge of bioethics and the limits of moral formalism’ Radical Philosophy 125(May-June):37-45.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, S. (2005) ‘“New” genetics meets the old underclass: Findings from a study of genetic outreach services in rural Kentucky’ in R. Bunton and A. Petersen (eds) Genetic Governance: Health, Risk and Ethics in the Biotech Era, pp. 137-151. Routledge: London.
   Google Scholar
• Kerr, A. and Cunningham-Burley, S. (2000) ‘On ambivalence and risk: Reflexive modernity and the new human genetics’ Sociology 34(2):283-304.
   Google Scholar
• Knudsen, S. (2005) ‘Communicating novel and conventional scientific metaphors: A study of the development of the metaphor of genetic code’ Public Understandings of Science 14:373-392.
   Google Scholar
• Krones, T.; Schluter, E.; Neuwohner, E.; El Ansari, S.; Wissner, T. and Richter, G. (2006) ‘What is the pre-implantation embryo?’ Social Science and Medicine 63:1-20.
   Google Scholar
• Lavery, S. (2004) ‘Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and the welfare of the child’ Human Fertility 7(4):295-300.
   Google Scholar
• Lemke, T. (2005) ‘From eugenics to the government of genetic risk’ in R. Bunton and A. Petersen (eds) Genetic Governance: Health, Risk and Ethics in the Biotech Era, pp. 95-105. Routledge: London.
   Google Scholar
• Nerlich, B.; Johnson, S. and Clarke, D. (2003) ‘The first “designer baby”: The role of narratives, clichés and metaphors in the year 2000 media debate’ Science as Culture 12(4):471-498.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, M. (2000) ‘Public deliberation and private choice in genetics and reproduction’ Journal of Medical Ethics 26:160-165.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen, A. (2001) ‘Biofantasies: Genetics and medicine in the print news media’ Social Science and Medicine 52:1255-1268.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen, A.; Anderson, A. and Allan, S. (2005) ‘Science fiction/science fact: Medical genetics in news stories’ New Genetics and Society 24(3):337-353.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen, A. (2006) ‘The genetic conception of health: Is it as radical as claimed?’ Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine 10(4):481-500.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen, T. (2005) ‘Just diagnosis? Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and injustices to disabled people’ Journal of Medical Ethics 31:231-234.
   Google Scholar
• Pilnick, A. (2002) ‘“There are no rights and wrongs in these situations”: Identifying interactional difficulties in genetic counselling’ Sociology of Health and Illness 24(1):66-88.
   Google Scholar
• Polkinghorne, J. (2004) ‘The person, the soul, and genetic engineering’ Journal of Medical Ethics 30:593-597.
   Google Scholar
• Polzer, J. (2005) ‘Choice as responsibility: Genetic testing as citizenship through familial obligation and the management of risk’ in R. Bunton and A. Petersen (eds) Genetic Governance: Health, Risk and Ethics in the Biotech Era, pp. 79-92. Routledge: London.
   Google Scholar
• Poutanen, S. (2005) ‘The first genetic screening in Finland: Its execution, evaluation and some possible implications for liberal government’ in R. Bunton and A. Petersen (eds) Genetic Governance: Health, Risk and Ethics in the Biotech Era, pp. 65-78. Routledge: London.
   Google Scholar
• Rapp, R. (1999) Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America Routledge: New York.
   Google Scholar
• Rapp, R.; Heath, D. and Taussig, K. (2001) ‘Genealogical dis-ease: Where hereditary abnormality, biomedical explanation, and family responsibility meet’ in S. Franklin and S. McKinnon (eds) Relative Values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies, pp.385-409. Duke University Press: Durham.
   Google Scholar
• Reame, N. (2001) ‘Gender by design: Not yet ready for prime time’ American Journal of Bioethics 1(1):29-31.
   Google Scholar
• Rhodes, R. (2001) ‘Acceptable sex selection’ American Journal of Bioethics 1(1):31-33.
   Google Scholar
• Rixecker, S. (2002) ‘Genetic engineering and queer biotechnology: The eugenics of the twenty-first century’ Journal of Genocide Research 4(1):109-126.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, C. and Franklin, S. (2004) ‘Experiencing new forms of genetic choice: Findings from an ethnographic study of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis’ Human Fertility 7(4):285-293.
   Google Scholar
• Robertson, J. (2001) ‘Preconception gender selection’ The American Journal of Bioethics 1(1):2-9.
   Google Scholar
• Robertson, J. (2003) ‘Extending pre-implantation genetic diagnosis: Medical and non-medical uses’ Journal of Medical Ethics 29(4):213-216.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, N. (2005) ‘Will biomedicine transform society? The political, economic, social and personal impact of medical advances in the twenty-first century’ in Clifford Barclay Lecture available at http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/LSEPublicLecturesAndEvents/pdf/20050202-WillBiomedicine-NikRose.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Rothman, B. (1993) The Tentative Pregnancy: How Amniocentesis Changes the Experience of Motherhood Norton: New York.
   Google Scholar
• Savulescu, J. (2001) ‘In defense of selection for nondisease genes’ The American Journal of Bioethics 1(1):16-19.
   Google Scholar
• Scambler, G. (2005) ‘The future of human nature’ Social Theory and Health 3(3):242-244.
   Google Scholar
• Scully, J.; Banks, S. and Shakespeare, T. (2006) ‘Chance, choice and control: Lay debate on prenatal social sex selection’ Social Science and Medicine 63:21-31.
   Google Scholar
• Shakespeare, T. (1998) ‘Choices and rights: Eugenics, genetics and disability equality’ Disability and Society 13(5):665-681.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J. (2003) ‘“Suitable Mothers”: Lesbian and Single Women and the “Unborn” in Kellie Brandenburg Australian Parliamentary Discourse’ Critical Social Policy 231(74): 63-88.
   Google Scholar
• Watt, H. (2004) ‘Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis: Choosing the “good enough” child’ Health Care Analysis 12(1):51-60.
   Google Scholar
• Ward, L. (2005) ‘Whose right to choose? The new genetics, prenatal testing and people with learning difficulties’ in R. Bunton and A. Petersen (eds) Genetic Governance: Health, Risk and Ethics in the Biotech Era, pp. 121-135. Routledge: London.
   Google Scholar
• Willis, E. (2005) ‘Public health and the “new genetics”: Balancing individual and collective outcomes’ in R. Bunton and A. Petersen (eds) Genetic Governance: Health, Risk and Ethics in the Biotech Era, pp. 155-169. Routledge: London.
   Google Scholar
• Zeiler, K. (2004) ‘Reproductive autonomous choice – A cherished illusion? Reproductive autonomy examined in the context of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis’ Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7(2):175-183.
   Google Scholar