4.5 Article

Life insurance: genomic stratification and risk classification

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 22, 期 5, 页码 575-579

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2013.228

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the 'CIHR Team in Familial Risk of Breast Cancer' Program [87521]
  2. Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation, and Export Trade [PSR-S11R1-701]
  3. Cancer Research UK [13065] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the development and increasing accessibility of new genomic tools such as next-generation sequencing, genome-wide association studies, and genomic stratification models, the debate on genetic discrimination in the context of life insurance became even more complex, requiring a review of current practices and the exploration of new scenarios. In this perspective, a multidisciplinary group of international experts representing different interests revisited the genetics and life insurance debate during a 2-day symposium 'Life insurance: breast cancer research and genetic risk prediction seminar' held in Quebec City, Canada on 24 and 25 September 2012. Having reviewed the current legal, social, and ethical issues on the use of genomic information in the context of life insurance, the Expert Group identified four main questions: (1) Have recent developments in genomics and related sciences changed the contours of the genetics and life insurance debate? (2) Are genomic results obtained in a research context relevant for life insurance underwriting? (3) Should predictive risk assessment and risk stratification models based on genomic data also be used for life insurance underwriting? (4) What positive actions could stakeholders in the debate take to alleviate concerns over the use of genomic information by life insurance underwriters? This paper presents a summary of the discussions and the specific action items recommended by the Expert Group. published online 16 October 2013

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据