Difference between revisions of "Resource:Dcdeef8f-3074-4acd-abdf-5f2835e52ebc"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=How Earnest Research Into Gay Genetics Went Wrong | |Title=How Earnest Research Into Gay Genetics Went Wrong | ||
| − | |Is About= | + | |Is About=The case focuses on the complicated story of a genetic research on sexual orientation. |
| + | |Important Because=It highlights the ethical challenges of designing and conducting genetics research, telling a real life story where research results start to live their life of their own, and how results might be used in unintended ways. Research could be misconstrued or wielded to advance harmful agendas. The story presents a broader and more systematic view of how scientists should think about their research beyond simply following existing legal requirements. | ||
|Important For=Researchers | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
|Has Link=https://www.wired.com/story/how-earnest-research-into-gay-genetics-went-wrong/ | |Has Link=https://www.wired.com/story/how-earnest-research-into-gay-genetics-went-wrong/ | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Resource=Resource:F7ed25ad-cfab-4040-b52f-596accc3c317 | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| − | |Involves=Andrea Ganna | + | |Involves=Andrea Ganna; Ben Neale |
|Has Timepoint=2017 | |Has Timepoint=2017 | ||
|Has Location=United Kingdom | |Has Location=United Kingdom | ||
Revision as of 16:15, 11 September 2020
ResourcesCases
How Earnest Research Into Gay Genetics Went Wrong
What is this about?
The case focuses on the complicated story of a genetic research on sexual orientation.
Why is this important?
It highlights the ethical challenges of designing and conducting genetics research, telling a real life story where research results start to live their life of their own, and how results might be used in unintended ways. Research could be misconstrued or wielded to advance harmful agendas. The story presents a broader and more systematic view of how scientists should think about their research beyond simply following existing legal requirements.
