AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ard, C. F.
Right arrow Articles by Natowicz, M. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ard, C. F.
Right arrow Articles by Natowicz, M. R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Ethics
Right arrow Genetics
Right arrow Health Policy

American Journal of Public Health, Vol 91, Issue 5 787-790, Copyright © 2001 by American Public Health Association

JOURNAL ARTICLE

A seat at the table: membership in federal advisory committees evaluating public policy in genetics

CF Ard and MR Natowicz
Florence Heller Graduate School for Advanced Studies in Social Welfare, Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass., USA.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined who participates in federal government advisory committees regarding public policy in human and medical genetics, what parties they represent, and to what extent the general public is meaningfully represented. METHODS: Analysis focused on 7 federal government documents published from January 1990 to February 1995. Advisors were categorized into 4 groups based on the professional affiliations that were listed in the publications. After a search of several references and data-bases, the study examined whether these individuals also had other affiliations not listed in the government publications. RESULTS: Individuals whose principal affiliations were with academia (n = 32; 44%) or industry (n = 19; 26%) represented nearly three fourths of the sample, followed by government employees (n = 13; 18%) and consumer advocates (n = 8; 11%). At least 16% of the advisors serving on the federal committees, mostly members of academia, had a dual affiliation. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that the public has modest representation on key federal advisory committees making policy recommendations regarding human genetics technology and clinical practice and that there is ample room for additional public participation.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
S. E. Gollust, K. Apse, B. P. Fuller, P. S. Miller, and B. B. Biesecker
Community Involvement in Developing Policies for Genetic Testing: Assessing the Interests and Experiences of Individuals Affected by Genetic Conditions
Am J Public Health, January 1, 2005; 95(1): 35 - 41.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Public Health Association