EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 34 / No 8-9 (Août–Septembre 2018) Med Sci (Paris), 34 8-9 (2018) 735-739 References
Open Access
Issue
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 34, Number 8-9, Août–Septembre 2018
Les Cahiers de Myologie
Page(s) 735 - 739
Section Forum
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/20183408022
Published online 19 September 2018
  1. Stoekle HC, Mamzer-Bruneel MF, Vogt G, Herve C. 23andMe : a new two-sided data-banking market model. BMC Medical Ethics 2016 ; 17: 19. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Stoekle HC. Médecine personnalisé et bioéthique : enjeux éthiques dans l’échange et le partage des données génétiques. Paris : L’Harmattan, 2017: 131–132. [Google Scholar]
  3. Turrini M, Prainsack B. Beyond clinical utility : the multiple values of DTC genetics. Appl Transl Genom 2016 ;8 : 4–8. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Stenger T, Coutant A. Ces réseaux numeriques dits sociaux. Hermès 59. Paris : CNRS Éditions, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  5. Proulx S, Heaton L, Kwok Choon M, Millette M. Paradoxical empowerment of produsers in the context of informational capitalism. New Rev Hypermedia Multimedia 2011 ;17 : 563–574. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Belk R. Sharing. JCR 2010 ;36 : 715–734. [Google Scholar]
  7. John N. Sharing and Web 2.0 : the emergence of a keyword. New Media Society 2012 ;15 : 167–182. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Belk R. Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in Web 2.0. Anthropologist 2014 ;18 : 7–23. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Armstrong M. Competition in two-sided markets. RAND J Economics 2006 ;37 : 668–91. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Rochet JC, Tirole J. Platform competition in two-sided markets. J Eur Economic Association 2003 ; 990–1029. [Google Scholar]
  11. Benkler Y. Sharing nicely : on shareable goods and the emergence of sharing as a modality of economic production. Yale Law J 2004 ;114 : 273–358. [Google Scholar]
  12. John NA. The age of sharing. New York : John Wiley and Sons, 2016: 224 p. [Google Scholar]
  13. Church GM. The personal genome project. Mol Syst Biol 2005 ;1 : 2005–30. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ball MP, Bobe JR, Chou MF, et al. Harvard personal genome project : lessons from participatory public research. Genome Med 2014 ; 6: 10. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Orsi F, Moatti J. D’un droit de propriété intellectuelle sur le vivant aux firmes de génomique : vers une marchandisation de la connaissance scientifique sur le génome humain. Économie Prévision 2001 ;4 : 123–138. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hervé C, Stoekle HC, Vogt G. Un marché aux données génétiques qui interroge. Le Monde 2016. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hayden EC. The rise and fall and rise again of 23andMe. Nature 2017 ;550 : 174–177. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Sharon T. The googlization of health research : from disruptive innovation to disruptive ethics. Personalized Medicine 2016 ;13 : 563–574. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Greshake B, Bayer PE, Rausch H, Reda J. openSNP-a crowdsourced web resource for personal genomics. PLoS One 2014 ; 9: e89204. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jordan B. 23andMe ou comment (très bien) valoriser ses clients. Med Sci (Paris) 2015 ;31 : 447–449. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.