In this paper, we conceptualized fatalism as a set of health beliefs that encompass the dimensions of predetermination, luck and pessimism. A 20-item scale was developed as a measurement instrument. Confirmatory factor analyses were performed to test the dimensionality of the scale. Three external variables (i.e., genetic determinism, perceived benefits of lifestyle change, and intention to engage in healthy behavior) were used as reference variables to test the construct validity of the scale. Data from a web-based national survey (N=1218) showed that the scale was unidimensional on the second order, and with good reliability (α =.88). The relationships between the external variables and the first- and second-order factors provided evidence of the scale’s external consistency and construct validity.

No abstract

No abstract

It has been suggested that genomic research is frequently inappropriately hyped, in both the popular press and the scientific literature, and that this hype has the potential to create a range of social concerns. This paper maps the complex array of social forces that contribute to the phenomenon of hype, including the pressure to publish, the increasingly intense commercialization agenda, the messaging emanating from research institutions, the news media and, even, the public itself. These numerous and interrelated factors create a ‘hype pipeline’ that will be difficult to counter without the utilization of a wide range of policy strategies.

Much research on fatalism assumes that fatalistic statements represent a global outlook that conflicts with belief in the efficacy of health behaviours. Other scholars have suggested a more contextual approach, suggesting that fatalism fulfils personal and social functions. This study analyses 96 in-depth lay interviews in the US, most with low-income members of the general public, about four diseases: heart disease, lung cancer, diabetes and depression. Within these interviews, fatalistic statements always occurred alongside statements endorsing the utility of behaviours for protecting health. This usage pattern suggests that these statements may have useful functions, rather than being simply a repudiation of the utility of health choices. We examine four functions that are suggested by previous researchers or by the participants' comments: stress relief, uncertainty management, sense making and (less strongly) face saving. As these themes indicate, individuals often make fatalistic statements to express an understanding of locally or broadly limiting factors for health efficacy, including genes, spiritual agents, prior behaviours, personality, and other factors.

, "Believing in both genetic determinism and behavioral action: a materialist framework and implications" (2009). Faculty Research and Creative Activity. 7.

Despite the quickening momentum of genomic discovery, the communication, behavioral, and social sciences research needed for translating this discovery into public health applications has lagged behind. The National Human Genome Research Institute held a 2-day workshop in October 2008 convening an interdisciplinary group of scientists to recommend forward-looking priorities for translational research. This research agenda would be designed to redress the top three risk factors (tobacco use, poor diet, and physical inactivity) that contribute to the four major chronic diseases (heart disease, type 2 diabetes, lung disease, and many cancers) and account for half of all deaths worldwide. Three priority research areas were identified: (1) improving the public’s genetic literacy in order to enhance consumer skills; (2) gauging whether genomic information improves risk communication and adoption of healthier behaviors more than current approaches; and (3) exploring whether genomic discovery in concert with emerging technologies can elucidate new behavioral intervention targets. Important crosscutting themes also were identified, including the need to: (1) anticipate directions of genomic discovery; (2) take an agnostic scientific perspective in framing research questions asking whether genomic discovery adds value to other health promotion efforts; and (3) consider multiple levels of influence and systems that contribute to important public health problems. The priorities and themes offer a framework for a variety of stakeholders, including those who develop priorities for research funding, interdisciplinary teams engaged in genomics research, and policymakers grappling with how to use the products born of genomics research to address public health challenges.

Every biotechnology success story increases the number of decisions that the lay public must make about genetics. But vibrant public discussion about these far-reaching changes has been rare, and research on the public's understanding of genetics has barely scratched the surface. This article reviews what we know about the public's attitudes towards genetics, proposes some concepts for thinking about public involvement and indicates some future lines of research.