What is in a cause? Exploring the relationship between genetic cause and felt stigma

PURPOSE: Concern over stigma as a consequence of genetic testing has grown in response to the recent increase in genetic research and testing resulting from the Human Genome Project. However, whether a genetic or hereditary basis necessarily confers a stigma to a condition remains unexamined. METHODS: We performed a qualitative interview study with 86 individuals with one of four conditions: deafness or hearing loss, breast cancer, sickle cell disease, and cystic fibrosis. The first two groups were divided approximately between people who ascribed their conditions to a genetic or hereditary cause and those who did not. RESULTS: Respondents interpreted genetic or hereditary causes and nongenetic causes in a variety of ways. Subjects with breast cancer reported the most consistently negative interpretation of genetic cause. This response concerned future ill health, not an enduring sense of stigma. Deaf and hard of hearing subjects provided the most consistently positive comments about a genetic or hereditary basis to their condition, casting familial hearing loss as a vital component of group and individual identity. Respondents with sickle cell disease and cystic fibrosis offered similar and positive interpretations of the genetic cause of their condition insofar as it meant their conditions were not contagious. CONCLUSIONS: Although some subjects report feeling stigmatized as a result of their condition, this stigmatization is not uniformly associated with the condition's cause, genetic or otherwise. Instead, stigma emerges from a variety of sources in the context of the lived experience of a particular condition.     

Studies on the serum proteins of chimeras: III. Detection of donor-type C′5 in allogeneic and congenic post-irradiation chimeras

Allogeneic and congenic post-irradiation chimeras were produced by bone marrow transfer from C′5 active donor mice into C′5 defective recipients. During the first 4 weeks after transfer many of the chimeras contained haemolytic complement activity in their sera. B6AF₁→A chimeras developed higher levels of activity than did B10D2 (new line)→ B10D2 (old line).

Spleen tissue, but not liver tissue, taken from the chimeric animals during this time period incorporated [¹⁴C]amino acid into MuB1 as demonstrated by autoradiography of immunoelectrophoretic patterns, suggesting localization of the active donor cells in the spleen rather than in the liver. Formation of donor-type IgG remained demonstrable for a more extended period after induction of chimerism than formation of MuB1.

A transplantable hepatoma in C57L/J, a C′5 active mouse strain, also incorporated [¹⁴C]amino acid into MuB1.

     

Measurement Issues in Health Disparities Research

Background. Racial and ethnic disparities in health and health care have been documented; the elimination of such disparities is currently part of a national agenda. In order to meet this national objective, it is necessary that measures identify accurately the true prevalence of the construct of interest across diverse groups. Measurement error might lead to biased results, e.g., estimates of prevalence, magnitude of risks, and differences in mean scores. Addressing measurement issues in the assessment of health status may contribute to a better understanding of health issues in cross-cultural research.
Objective. To provide a brief overview of issues regarding measurement in diverse populations.
Findings. Approaches used to assess the magnitude and nature of bias in measures when applied to diverse groups include qualitative analyses, classic psychometric studies, as well as more modern psychometric methods. These approaches should be applied sequentially, and/or iteratively during the development of measures.
Conclusions. Investigators performing comparative studies face the challenge of addressing measurement equivalence, crucial for obtaining accurate results in cross-cultural comparisons.     

Recommendations for Better Civic Learning: Building and Rebuilding Democracy

This is the concluding essay for a special report from The Hastings Center entitled Democracy in Crisis: Civic Learning and the Reconstruction of Common Purpose, which grew out of a project supported by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. This essay provides an integrative discussion of various theoretical and practical reform perspectives offered by other essays in the report. It also offers a number of recommendations. It notes that the aim of the special report is not to propose specific reform measures but, rather, to consider larger, more theoretic concerns related to political and economic questions, which are personal and structural—psychological, cultural, and institutional—at the same time. In response, this essay argues that the best relationship between the citizenry and government in a democracy is not one of deference, nor one of contestation, but one that is critically constructive, which in turn is linked to practices of civic learning. To be constructive, citizens need scientific literacy, an understanding of how government and other institutions work, critical thinking abilities, and many open and diverse forums for civic learning to offset the increasingly isolating media “bubbles” that are the only source of information for many. The essay then formulates five recommendations designed to facilitate critically constructive citizenship and civic learning. These are creating a basis for civic participation, acquiring information, talking to each other, designing institutional change, and achieving deliberation.     

CD4 coating, but not CD4 depletion, is a predictor of efficacy with primatized monoclonal anti-CD4 treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE: Double blind studies were conducted with the anti-CD4 monoclonal antibody (Mab) keliximab in patients with active, stable rheumatoid arthritis (RA), to confirm preliminary evidence of efficacy and safety from open. uncontrolled studies. METHODS: We enrolled 136 and 186 patients into 2 consecutive, randomized, double blind trials, with similar populations [apart from inclusion of disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-na?ve patients in Study 2]. Patients received 4 weeks intravenous placebo or keliximab [40, 80, 120, or 140 mg twice weekly (bw), or 240 mg once weekly (ow)].The primary endpoint was the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response criteria, one week after the end of treatment. RESULTS: ACR 20 response rates in Study I were 19%, 42%, 51%*, and 69%* (*p < 0.05 compared to placebo), with placebo, 40, 80, or 140 mg keliximab bw, respectively. The response rates in Study 2 were 30%, 39%, 46% and 47% with placebo, 80 or 120 mg bw, or 240 mg keliximab ow, respectively. In the 2 studies, there was a dose dependent increase in peripheral blood CD4+ T cell coating with keliximab, but a different pattern of CD4 depletion was seen. While only 12% of keliximab treated patients in Study I had CD4 counts below 250 cells/mm3 at the end of the treatment period, 47% fell below this level in Study 2. Clinical response was not correlated with CD4 depletion, but was correlated with CD4+ T cell coating with keliximab. CONCLUSION: Coating of peripheral blood CD4+ T cells with keliximab, but not CD4 depletion, is a determinant of clinical response.