Aim: This study examined understandings of basic genetic concepts among Americans. Method: In a national telephone survey of 1,200 Americans with equal representation among Black and White men and women, subjects responded to 8 items developed by a multidisciplinary team of experts that assessed understanding of basic concepts in multiple domains, including inheritance, genetics and race, and genetics and behavior. Results: Over 70% of subjects responded correctly on items about the genetic similarity of identical twins and siblings. Less than half of subjects responded correctly on all other items. Understanding of genetics was lowest in three areas: types/locations of genes in the body (29% correct), a genetic basis for race (25% correct), and the influence of single genes on behaviors (24% correct). Logistic regression models controlling for age and education showed some differences by race and gender on specific items but also showed that understandings are generally similar across these groups. Conclusion: Misunderstandings about genetics are common among Black and White American men and women. Responses appear to reflect personal experiences, group values and interests. These findings emphasize the need for initiatives to improve the public’s genetic literacy as well as a need for further investigation in this domain.

Keywords:
Gender, Genetic knowledge, Race, Survey, Understanding
1.
Kegley JA: An ethical imperative: genetics education for physicians and patients. Med Law 2003;22:275–283.
2.
Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health and Society: A roadmap for the integration of genetics and genomics into health and society. Washington, DC, Department of Human Health & Services, 2004.
3.
Collins FS, Green ED, Guttmacher AE, Guyer MS, U. S. National Human Genome Research Institute: A vision for the future of genomics research. Nature 2003;422:835–847.
4.
Lanie AD, Jayaratne TE, Sheldon JP, Kardia SL, Anderson ES, Feldbaum M, Petty EM: Exploring the public understanding of basic genetic concepts. J Genet Couns 2004;13:305–320.
5.
Genetics and Public Policy Center: Public awareness and knowledge; in Kalfoglou A, et al (eds): Reproductive Genetic Testing: What America Thinks. Washington, DC, Genetics and Public Policy Center, 2004, pp 7–10.
6.
National Science Board: Science and Technology: public attitudes and understanding; in Science and Engineering Indicators 2008. Arlington, VA, National Science Foundation, 2008, vol 1, pp 1–47.
7.
Molster C, Charles T, Samanek A, O’Leary P: Australian study on public knowledge of human genetics and health. Public Health Genomics 2009;12:84–91.
8.
Human Genetics Commission: Public attitudes to human genetic information: people’s panel quantitative study conducted for the Human Genetics Commission, 2001, London, UK.
9.
Durant JR, Hansen A, Bauer M: Public understanding of the new genetics; in Marteau T, Richards M (eds): The Troubled Helix. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp 235–248.
10.
Clark NM, Gong M, Kaciroti N: A model of self-regulation for control of chronic disease. Health Educ Behav 2001;28:769–782.
11.
Offit K: Genomic profiles for disease risk: predictive or premature? JAMA 2008;299:1353–1355.
12.
Mittman IS, Secundy MG: A national dialogue on genetics and minority issues. Community Genet 1998;1:190–200.
13.
Citrin T, Modell S, Gwinn MD, Bedrosian S, Ottman D, Khoury MD: Chapter 8: Genomics and public health: ethical, legal, and social issues; in Genomics and Population Health: United States 2003. 2004, The Office of Genomics and Disease Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA, pp 851–859.
14.
Jallinoja P, Aro AR: Does knowledge make a difference? The association between knowledge about genes and attitudes toward gene tests. J Health Commun 2000;5:29–39.
15.
Garland MJ: Experts and the public: a needed partnership for genetic policy. Public Underst Sci 1999;8:241–254.
16.
Markel H: The stigma of disease: implications of genetic screening. Am J Med 1992;93:209–215.
17.
Pernick MS: Eugenics and public health in American history. Am J Public Health 1997;87:1767–1772.
18.
Keller J: In genes we trust: the biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. J Pers Soc Psychol 2005;88:686–702.
19.
Yzerbyt V, Estrada C, Corneille O, Seron E, Demoulin S: Subjective essentialism in action: self-anchoring and social control as consequences of fundamental social divides; in Yzerbyt V, Judd CM, Corneille O (eds): The Psychology of Group Perception: Perceived Variability, Entitativity, and Essentialism. New York, Psychology Press, 2004, pp 101–124.
20.
Bastian B, Haslam N: Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. J Exp Soc Psychol 2006;42:228–235.
21.
Feldman MW, Lewontin RC, King M: Race: a genetic melting-pot. Nature 2003;424:374.
22.
Smedley A, Smedley BD: Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real: anthropological and historical perspectives on the social construction of race. Am Psychol 2005;60:16–26.
23.
Cooper RS, Kaufman JS, Ward R: Race and genomics. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1166–1170.
24.
Prentice DA, Miller DT: Psychological essentialism of human categories. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2007;16:202–206.
25.
Ponder M, Lee J, Green J, Richards M: Family history and perceived vulnerability to some common diseases: a study of young people and their parents. J Med Genet 1996;33:485–492.
26.
Emslie C, Hunt K, Watt G: A chip off the old block? Lay understandings of inheritance among men and women in mid-life. Public Underst Sci 2003;12:47–65.
27.
Scheuner MT, Sieverding P, Shekelle PG: Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases: a systematic review. JAMA 2008;299:1320–1334.
28.
Walter FM, Emery J, Braithwaite D, Marteau TM: Lay understanding of familial risk of common chronic diseases: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. Ann Fam Med 2004;2:583–594.
29.
Singer E, Antonucci T, Van Hoewyk J: Racial and ethnic variations in knowledge and attitudes about genetic testing. Genet Test 2004;8:31–43.
30.
Donovan KA, Tucker DC: Knowledge about genetic risk for breast cancer and perceptions of genetic testing in a sociodemographically diverse sample. J Behav Med 2000;23:15–36.
31.
Lerman C, Narod S, Schulman K, Hughes C, Gomez-Caminero A, Bonney G, Gold K, Trock B, Main D, Lynch J, Fulmore C, Snyder C, Lemon SJ, Conway T, Tonin P, Lenoir G, Lynch H: BRCA1 testing in families with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. A prospective study of patient decision making and outcomes. JAMA 1996;275:1885–1892.
32.
Sheldon JP, Jayaratne TE, Feldbaum M, DiNardo CD, Petty EM: Applications and implications of advances in human genetics: perspectives from a group of black Americans. Community Genet 2007;10:82–92.
33.
Dean C: Women in Science: The Battle Moves to the Trenches. New York Times, 12/19/2006, p F.1.
34.
Summers LH: Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce. Cambridge, MA, Office of the President, Harvard University, 2005. Available at http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/summers_2005/nber.php.
35.
Arcury TA, Skelly AH, Gesler WM, Dougherty MC: Diabetes meanings among those without diabetes: explanatory models of immigrant Latinos in rural North Carolina. Soc Sci Med 2004;59:2183–2193.
36.
Richards M: Lay and professional knowledge of genetics and inheritance. Public Underst Sci 1996;5:217–230.
37.
Richards M, Ponder M: Lay understanding of genetics: a test of a hypothesis. J Med Genet 1996;33:1032–1036.
38.
Jayaratne TE, Gelman SA, Feldbaum M, Sheldon JP, Petty EM, Kardia SL: The perennial debate: nature, nurture, or choice? Black and White Americans’ explanations for individual differences. Rev Gen Psychol 2009;13:24–33.
39.
Jayaratne TE, Ybarra O, Sheldon JP, Brown TN, Feldbaum M, Pfeffer CA, Petty EM: White Americans’ genetic lay theories of race differences and sexual orientation: their relationship with prejudice toward blacks, and gay men and lesbians. Group Process Intergroup Relat 2006;9:77–94.
40.
Leyser da Rosa V, Solomon J: When science and the public meet: training for genetic counseling. Public Underst Sci 1998;7:271–284.
41.
Smerecnik CM, Mesters I, de Vries NK, de Vries H: Educating the general public about multifactorial genetic disease: applying a theory-based framework to understand current public knowledge. Genet Med 2008;10:251–258.
42.
Ondrusek N, Warner E, Goel V: Development of a knowledge scale about breast cancer and heredity (BCHK). Breast Cancer Res Treat 1999;53:69–75.
43.
Lee ES, Forthofer RN: Analyzing Complex Survey Data. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, 2006.
44.
Kessler L, Collier A, Halbert C: Knowledge about genetics among African Americans. J Genet Couns 2007;16:191–200.
45.
Kozol J: Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. New York, Crown Publishers, 1991.
46.
Yzerbyt V, Corneille O, Estrada C: The interplay of subjective essentialism and entitativity in the formation of stereotypes. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2001;5:141–155.
47.
Cole ER, Jayaratne TE, Cecchi LA, Feldbaum M, Petty EM: Vive la différence? Genetic explanations for perceived gender differences in nurturance. Sex Roles 2007;57:211–222.
48.
Hughes M, Tuch SA: Gender differences in whites racial attitudes: are women’s attitudes really more favorable? Soc Psychol Q 2003;66:384–401.
49.
Blakely EL, He L, Taylor RW, Chinnery PF, Lightowlers RN, Schaefer AM, Turnbull DM: Mitochondrial DNA deletion in ‘identical’ twin brothers. J Med Genet 2004;41:e19.
50.
Bowling BV, Acra EE, Wang L, Myers MF, Dean GE, Markle GC, Moskalik CL, Huether CA: Development and evaluation of a genetics literacy assessment instrument for undergraduates. Genetics 2008;178:15–22.
51.
Erby LH, Roter D, Larson S, Cho J: The rapid estimate of adult literacy in genetics (REAL-G): a means to assess literacy deficits in the context of genetics. Am J Med Genet A 2008;146A:174–181.
52.
Messick S: Response sets; in Sills DL (ed): International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York, Macmillan, 1968, pp 492–496.
53.
Aday LA: Formatting questions about knowledge and attitudes; in Designing and Conducting Health Surveys. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1996, pp 243–260.
54.
Schunk DH, Pintrich PR, Meece JL: Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications. Upper Saddle River, Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall, 2008.
55.
Graham S, Taylor A: Ethnicity, gender, and the development of achievement values; in Wigfield A, Eccles JS (eds): Development of Achievement Motivation. San Diego, Academic Press, 2002, pp 121–146.
56.
Pew Research Center: Survey experiment shows: Polls face growing resistance, but still representative, 2004. Available at http://peoplepress.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=211.
57.
American Association for Public Opinion Research: Standard definitions. Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys, 2008. Available at http://www.aapor.org/uploads/Standard_Definitions_04_08_Final.pdf.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
2010
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.