Genetic Villains
South Carolina Law Review, Forthcoming
2020
- 572Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Paper Description
When a little boy’s doctors relied on his genetic test results to guide their treatment, they opted for medicines that eventually killed him. The lab that generated the genetic test results knew, at the time of the report, that these results might have meant something other than what was communicated to the doctors. Had his doctors known what the lab knew, their course of treatment would have certainly changed. Whether we see the lab as this narrative’s villains depends on our perspective. And though, of course, it is tempting to name a villain under these circumstances, doing so leaves the problem unsolved. This Article proposes that the best way to prevent outcomes like this in the future is not by punishing the labs’ conduct but by properly incentivizing them to perform efficiently. Class action theory and economics help us think of genetics labs as DNA aggregators, free to benefit from their work. And, with this framework in mind, incentivizing labs to reorganize as benefit corporations and adopt contracts and practices that protect their business will lead to the implementation of more effective reclassification and recontacting procedures.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know