ABSTRACT
Nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics (NGx) are fields of research that have raised significant expectations about their potential benefits. This article presents empirical data from an online survey seeking the opinions of NGx researchers (n=126) regarding the achievability of the potential benefits of NGx, the time envisioned for their realization, the motives that may lead to their explicit mention in scientific peer-reviewed articles and the audience(s) targeted by NGx researchers when reporting their results in such articles. Results show that caution should be taken to avoid the risks associated with biohype and the premature dissemination of the potential benefits of NGx among various audiences.
Subject(s)
Genetic Research , Information Dissemination , Nutrigenomics/methods , Periodicals as Topic/standards , Research Design/standards , Adult , Ethics, Research , Female , Financial Support , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
Nutrigenetics is a promising field, but the achievability of expected benefits is challenged by the methodological limitations that are associated with clinical research in that field. The mere existence of these limitations suggests that promises about potential outcomes may be premature. Thus, benefits claimed in scientific journal articles in which these limitations are not acknowledged might stimulate biohype. This article aims to examine whether nutrigenetics clinical research articles are a potential source of biohype. Of the 173 articles identified, 16 contained claims in which clinical applications were extrapolated from study results. The methodological limitations being incompletely acknowledged, these articles could potentially be a source of biohype.
Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/ethics , Ethics, Research , Evidence-Based Medicine/ethics , Nutrigenomics/ethics , Publishing/ethics , HumansABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: There are compelling reasons to ensure the participation of ethnic minorities and populations of all ages worldwide in nutrigenetics clinical research. If findings in such research are valid for some individuals, groups, or communities, and not for others, then ethical questions of justice--and not only issues of methodology and external validity--arise. This paper aims to examine inclusion in nutrigenetics clinical research and its scientific and ethical challenges. METHODS: In total, 173 publications were identified through a systematic review of clinical studies in nutrigenetics published between 1998 and 2007. Data such as participants' demographics as well as eligibility criteria were extracted. RESULTS: There is no consistency in the way participants' origins (ancestry, ethnicity, or race) and ages are described in publications. A vast majority of the studies identified was conducted in North America and Europe and focused on 'white' participants. Our results show that pregnant women (and fetuses), minors, and the elderly (≥ 75 years old) remain underrepresented. CONCLUSION: Representativeness in nutrigenetics research is a challenging ethical and scientific issue. Yet, if nutrigenetics is to benefit whole populations and be used in public and global health agendas, fair representation as well as clear descriptions of participants in publications are crucial.
