Some say the reformation generated by advances in molecular biology will be as important as that induced by the current revolution in information technologies. Impacts and issues of this transfer of knowledge, taking the form of prognostic medicine, must therefore be examined. In this respect, one of sociologists’ contributions will surely be to examine the various actors’ points of view (geneticists, physicians, scientists, affected or at-risk individuals, citizens) in order to determine, in perceptions as much as in facts, how technical innovations issued from molecular biology can be disseminated in the social imagery as well as in practice. Based on Saguenay-Lac-St. Jean’s experience and the public interventions of the Corporation for Research and Action on Hereditary Diseases, we propose viewing community genetics as a ‘frontier discipline’, a complex network of actors in which social representations, social participation, as well as service evaluation, must be properly understood.

Keywords:
Network of actors, Social representations, Public’s perceptions, Service evaluation, Community genetics, Frontier discipline
1.
Mathieu J, Perron M, Veillette S, Prévost C, Laberge C, Parizeau G, Melançon SB: Evaluation des effets psychosociaux du recours au test génétique chez les personnes à risque de la dystrophie myotonique et de la tyrosinémie. Projet subventionné 2000–2001, RRSSS-02 et MSSS, Programme de subventions en santé publique, 2000.
2.
Perron M: Sociogéographie de la santé à micro-échelle. Un modèle de différenciation spatiale au Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean, Université Paul Valéry, Montpellier, 1997.
3.
Veillette S, Perron M, Mathieu J, Prévost C, Hébert G: Sociocultural factors influencing the spread of myotonic dystrophy in the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean of the Province of Quebec; in Bittles AH, Roberts DF (eds): Genetics, Demography and Health in Minority Population. London, Macmillan, 1992, pp 83–101.
4.
Modell B, Kuliev A: The history of community genetics: The contribution of the haemoglobin disorders. Community Genet 1998;1:3–11.
5.
Gaudet D, Arseneault S, Bélanger C, Hudson T, Perron P, Bernard M, Hamet P: Procedure to protect confidentiality of familial data in community genetics and genomic research. Clin Genet 1999;55:259–264.
6.
Latour B, Woolgar S: La vie de laboratoire, la production des faits scientifiques. Paris, La Découverte, 1988.
7.
Flichy P: L’innovation technique. Paris, La Découverte, 1995.
8.
Ulrich CM, et al: Genetic testing for cancer risk: A population survey on attitudes and intention. Community Genet 1998;1:213–222.
9.
Milner J, Pifer L: Public Understanding of Biomedical Science in the US. Chicago, Chicago Academy of Sciences, 1993.
10.
US General Social Survey: Chicago, National Opinion Research Center, 1990.
11.
Durant J, Hansen A, Bauer M: Public understanding of the new genetics; in Marteau T, Richards M (eds): The Troubled Helix: Social and Psychological Implications of the New Human Genetics. London, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp 235–248.
12.
Macer D: Public acceptance of human gene therapy and perceptions of human genetic manipulation. Human Gene Ther 1992;3:511–518.
© 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel
2001
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.