Does genetic risk for common adult diseases influence reproductive plans? Evidence from a national survey experiment in the United States.

Prospective parents have long been able to learn details about their offspring's DNA, and social scientists have demonstrated that this form of genetic information influences reproductive decision-making. Now, new tests offer adults information about their own genetic risk for common diseases that begin later in life, raising new questions about whether this kind of personal risk will also affect fertility plans. Drawing on a survey experiment (N = 223) that assigned individuals a genetic risk (20%, 30% … 80%) for an adult-onset disease (heart disease, colon cancer, Alzheimer's Disease), this study examines whether such risks lead people to reconsider their plans to have children. Bringing together qualitative research on genetic risk and reproductive decision-making with demographic analyses of uncertainty and fertility, we find that when assigned a hypothetical genetic risk for a common adult-onset disease, childless individuals who plan to have children in the future are unlikely to reconsider those plans.

Same medicine, different reasons: Comparing women's bodily experiences of producing eggs for pregnancy or for profit.

Women doing in vitro fertilization (IVF) to have a child describe it as painful and emotionally draining. Egg donors undergo the same medical regimen for a different reason - to produce eggs for another woman in exchange for thousands of dollars - and describe it as quick and relatively painless. Medical researchers typically compare bodily responses by variables such as gender, age, and health status. We use the case of "egg production" to propose a new factor that may be an important source of variation in bodily experience: an individual's reason for undergoing the medical intervention in the first place. Using cluster analysis to analyze an original survey of 50 IVF patients and 62 egg donors from the United States, we find two distinct kinds of bodily experiences - "less intense" and "more intense" - and the intensity of one's experience is associated with one's reason for producing eggs: either to become pregnant or to donate them for money.

Does educational attainment shape reactions to genetic risk for Alzheimer's disease? Results from a national survey experiment.

While higher education is associated with healthy lifestyles and health literacy, it remains unclear whether education shapes reactions to varying levels of genetic risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD). In this study, participants (N = 701) in the National Genetic Risk Survey Experiment (NGRISE) received a hypothetical genetic risk assessment for AD (ranging from 20 to 80% lifetime risk) and then completed items on their cognitive (perceived threat to health), emotional (general negative affect), and anticipated behavioral (seek information, improve health behaviors, engage in public or private civic action) reactions to this risk. Individuals with a college education showed reactions to increasing genetic risk approximately twice or several times as strong relative to those of individuals with lower (high school, HS) education. In fact, behavioral reactions do not significantly increase with AD risk among those with HS education. Some educational differences in risk response widen at older ages.

Reacting to genetic risk: an experimental survey of life between health and disease.

Medical sociologists contend that we are living in an era of surveillance medicine, in which the emphasis on risk blurs the lines between health and disease. Yet, data to examine these claims are generally drawn from patients, raising questions about whether this modern experience of medical risk extends beyond the clinic to healthy people in the larger population. We use the specific case of genetic risk to construct a survey experiment designed to induce the conditions theorized by surveillance medicine. Each respondent in a nationally representative sample (N = 2,100) was assigned a genetic risk (20%, 30% . . . 80%) for a disease (colon cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease) and asked about many potential reactions. We find that people in the general population-regardless of health status or family history-respond to hypothetical genetic risk information by wanting to take action, and their reactions are stronger in domains related to self and family than to community and polity.

Public opinion on policy issues in genetics and genomics.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine public opinion on major policy issues in genetics and genomics, including federal spending on genetic research, the perceived significance of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, and whether clinicians should be involved in direct-to-consumer genetic testing. METHODS: This was a survey with a nationally representative sample of 2,100 American adults administered by the nonpartisan research firm YouGov in January 2011. RESULTS: The majority of the respondents (57%) believe that the federal government should spend more on genetic research, 82% rank the 2008 antidiscrimination law as "important," and 65% say that clinicians should be involved in explaining genetic test results (contra the practice of some direct-to-consumer companies). On all three policy issues, gender and political party affiliation were statistically significantly associated with respondents' views, whereas race/ethnicity and education were less consistently associated with policy opinions. CONCLUSION: Americans demonstrate widespread support for scientific research on genetics, laws protecting citizens against genetic discrimination, and the need to involve medical professionals in the process of genetic testing. These results are useful for scientists designing research projects, clinicians interacting with patients, professional organizations lobbying for resources, federal agencies setting budget priorities, and legislators designing regulation.

MORE AND LESS THAN EQUAL: How Men Factor in the Reproductive Equation.

In both social science and medicine, research on reproduction generally focuses on women. In this article, we examine how men's reproductive contributions are understood. We develop an analytic framework that brings together Cynthia Daniels' conceptualization of reproductive masculinity (2006) with a staged view of reproduction, where the stages include the period before conception, conception, gestation, and birth. Drawing on data from two medical sites that are oriented to the period before pregnancy (preconception health care and sperm banks), we examine how gendered knowledge about reproduction produces different reproductive equations in different stages of the reproductive process. We conclude with a new research agenda that emerges from rethinking the role of men and masculinity in reproduction.

Objectification, standardization, and commodification in health care: a conceptual readjustment.

Historically, medical sociologists have used the interrelated concepts of objectification, commodification, and standardization to point to the pathologies of modern medicine, such as the depersonalization of care and the effects of bureaucratic control. More recent work in science studies, economic sociology, and sociology of health and illness, however, has begun to explore how the social processes of objectification, commodification, and standardization produce a wide variety of biomedical achievements. We provide a theoretical synthesis of this emerging body of scholarship centered upon the intended and unintended consequences of objectification, commodification, and standardization to improve health. We then outline a research agenda that would result from a more comprehensive assessment of how these processes manifest themselves in clinical care.