Open Access
Issue
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 36, Number 2, Février 2020
Page(s) 153 - 159
Section Repères
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2019264
Published online 04 March 2020
  1. Jautrou H, Bès MP. Les tests génétiques en accès libre (2000–2012) : une innovation sanitaire régulée par le marché ? In: Valat B, ed. Les marchés de la santé en France et en Europe (XIXe-XXe siècle). Toulouse : Presses Universitaires du Midi, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  2. Jautrou H. Les tests génétiques vendus en libre accès sur l’Internet : une médicalisation sans médecin ? Thèse de doctorat de sociologie, Toulouse: Université Jean Jaurès, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  3. Wrick KL. Markets research. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: business prospects in the United States. Cambridge : Cambridge Healthtech Institute, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  4. GPPC. Survey of direct-to-consumer testing statutes and regulations. Genetics and public policy center. Berman Institute of Bioethics and Johns Hopkins University, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  5. Borry P, vann Hellemondt RE, Sprumont D, et al. Legislation on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in seven European countries. Eur J Hum Genet 2012; 20 : 715–21. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Jordan B. Les tests génétiques grand public ont-ils une utilité clinique ?. Med Sci (Paris) 2012 ; 28 : 325–328. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ducournau P, Gourraud PA, Rial-Sebbag E, et al. Tests génétiques en accès libre sur Internet : stratégies commerciales et enjeux éthiques et sociétaux. Med Sci (Paris) 2011 ; 27 : 95–102. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ng PC, Murray SS, Levy S, et al. An agenda for personalized medicine. Nature 2009 ; 461 : 724–726. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jordan B. Craig Venter et son exome. Med Sci (Paris) 2008 ; 24 : 989–990. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Jordan B. Dépistage du cancer : les promesses illusoires de Pathway Genomics. Med Sci (Paris) 2015 ; 31 : 1137–1139. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Borry P, Cornel MC, Howard HC. Where are you going, where have you been: a recent history of the direct-to-consumer genetic testing market. J Community Genet 2010 ; 1 : 101–106. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Klepper S. Industry life cycles. Ind Corp. Change 1997 ; 6 : 145–181. [Google Scholar]
  13. Jordan B. Grandes manœuvres autour des profils génétiques en libre accès. Med Sci (Paris) 2014 ; 30 : 227–228. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Saukko PM. Shifting metaphors in direct-to-consumer genetic testing: from genes as information to genes as big data. New Genet Soc 2017 ; 36 : 296–313. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Powell WW, Koput KW, White DR, et al. Network dynamics and field evolution: the growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. Am J Sociol 2005 ; 110 : 1132–1205. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kline SJ, Rosenberg N. An overview of innovation. In: Landau R, Rosenberg N, eds. National academy of engineering. The positive sum strategy: harnessing technology for economic growth. Washington DC : National Academy Press, 1986 : 275–305. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cooke P., Atkinson P, Glasner P, Lock M. State, markets and networks in bioeconomy knowledge value chains. Handbook of genetics and society: mapping the new genomic era. London-New York: Routledge, 2009: 163–180. [Google Scholar]
  18. Stoeklé HC, Mamzer-Bruneel MF, Vogt G, et al. 23andMe: a new two-sided data-banking market model. BMC Med Ethics 2016 ; 17 : 11. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Committee on cancer clinical trials and the NCI cooperative group program, board on health care services-Institute of medicine. A national cancer clinical trials system for the 21st century: reinvigorating the NCI cooperative group program. In: Nass SJ, Moses HL, Mendelsohn J, eds. Washington DC : National Academic Press, 2010 : 298 p. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kalokairinou L, Howard HC, Borry P. Current developments in the regulation of direct-to-consumer genetic testing in Europe. Med Law Int 2015 ; 15 : 97–123. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hennen L, Sauter A, Van den Cruyce E. Direct to consumer genetic testing study. Brussels: Parlement européen, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  22. Jordan B. Les tests génétiques grand public en caméra cachée. Med Sci (Paris) 2011 ; 27 : 103–106. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Stoeklé HC, Forster N, Turrini M, et al. La propriété des données génétiques : de la donnée à l’information. Med Sci (Paris) 2018 ; 34 : 1100–1104. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Borry P, Henneman L, Lakeman P, et al. Preconceptional genetic carrier testing and the commercial offer directly-to-consumers. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl 2011 ; 26 : 972–977. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Bourcier D, De Filippi P. Vers un droit collectif sur les données de santé. Rev Droit Sanit Soc RDSS Dalloz Rev 2018 ; 3 : 444–456. [Google Scholar]
  26. Howard HC, Borry P. Is there a doctor in the house? The presence of physicians in the direct-to-consumer genetic testing context. J Community Genet 2012 ; 3 : 105–112. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. EBPB. Guidelines 2/2018 on derogations of article 49 under regulation 2016/679. European Data Protection Board, 2018. [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.