REFLEXIVE STANDARDIZATION AND THE RESOLUTION OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE GENOMICS CLINIC
Keywords:
Abstract
This article explores how uncertainty is managed and resolved in genomics clinics through the standardization of practices and the reflexive engagement of clinicians with patients. The authors argue that standardization plays a critical role in managing uncertainty in the genomic clinic, but that this standardization must be accompanied by the reflexive engagement of clinicians with patients to ensure that the standardization is appropriate to the unique circumstances of each patient. The article "Reflexive Standardization and the Resolution of Uncertainty in the Genomics Clinic" explores the role of standardization in the practice of genomic medicine. The authors argue that while standardization has been seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in medical practice, in genomics it can also introduce new uncertainties. The article draws on ethnographic research conducted in a genomics clinic, focusing on the practices of standardization and the ways in which clinicians and patients navigate uncertainty. The authors propose the concept of "reflexive standardization" to describe the ways in which standardization can be made more flexible and responsive to the needs of individual patients. They suggest that this approach can help to resolve uncertainties in genomics practice and ensure that patients receive appropriate and personalized care.
Similar Articles
-
INTERACTIVE EDUCATIONAL METHODS USED IN TEACHING THE MODULE
European International Journal of Pedagogics: No. 06 (2023) / Shukhrat N. Mamatkulov, -
MODERN METHODS OF USING INNOVATIVE METHODS IN TEACHING FOREIGN LANGUAGES
European International Journal of Pedagogics: No. 09 (2023) / Klara Kh. Baratova, -
CONDITIONS AND WAYS OF TEACHING SCHOOL STUDENTS TO AVOID HARMFUL INFORMATION ON THE BASIS OF UNIVERSAL VALUES
European International Journal of Pedagogics: No. 05 (2023) / Khulkar Kh. A’zamova, -
THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE AND RATIONALISM IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF FIRDAVSI
European International Journal of Pedagogics: No. 06 (2023) / Madina A. Choriyeva,
References
Abraham J. (1993). Scientific standards and institutional interests: Carcinogenic risk assessment of Benoxaprofen in the UK and US. Social Studies of Science, 23(3), 387–444.
Bahcall O. (2016). ExAC boosts clinical variant interpretation in rare diseases. Nature Reviews Genetics, 17, 584.
Castel P. (2009). What’s behind a guideline? Authority, competition and collaboration in the French oncology sector. Social Studies of Science, 39(5), 743–764.
Cheon J. Y., Mozersky J., Cook-Deegan R. (2014). Variants of uncertain significance in BRCA: A harbinger of ethical and policy issues to come? Genetics in Medicine, 6, 121.
Davies S. C. (2017). Generation genome: Annual report of the chief medical officer 2016. Department of Health.
Domchek S., Weber B. L. (2008). Genetic variants of uncertain significance: Flies in the ointment. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26(1), 16–17.
Federici G., Soddu S. (2020). Variants of uncertain significance in the era of high-throughput genome sequencing: A lesson from breast and ovary cancers. Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research, 39, 46.
Feero W. G. (2014). Clinical application of whole-genome sequencing: Proceed with care. Journal of the American Medical Association, 311, 1017–1019.
Halverson C. M. E. (2019). Standards and legacies: Pragmatic constraints on a uniform gene nomenclature. Social Studies of Science, 49(3), 432–455.
