"Reading &amp; Writing Genomes" - George Church @ '09 DOE JGI User Meeting

Church, George Earl; Hornick, Leila

doi:10.4016/10578.01

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Accountability In Science1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2011

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scientific inquiry may shake longheld beliefs on any topic in any area, on seemingly small but very fundamental issues in science itself (Boogerd et al, 2011), as well as on the "big" questions in areas as remote as religion and cultural narrative. The latest developments in the biological sciences show that we are still sailing in uncharted waters and in particular the rise of synthetic biology presents us with what appear to be completely novel questions, while "we are moving from reading the genome to writing genomes" (Church, 2009). Ethical issues specific for synthetic biology are addressed by Newson in her contribution to this issue (Newson, 2011).…”

Section: Accountability In Sciencementioning

confidence: 98%

Editorial: Genetic and Genomic Research—Changing Patterns of Accountability

Lunshof

Chadwick

2011

Accountability in Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Debates about genomic science have raised questions about the implications for ethics and accountability. Accountability has external and internal aspects. Whereas ethical review, including attention to appropriate consent procedures, has been central to 'giving an account' externally, there are also issues internal to the practice of science itself. The pursuit of truth is central to the scientific endeavour, but truths can sometimes be 'inconvenient', leading to complex questions of accountability that go beyond the issues of consent. This is illustrated by the case of the Havasupai.

show abstract

Section: Accountability In Sciencementioning

confidence: 98%