Did you just say what I think you said? Talking about genes, identity and information

Identity in the Information Society 3 (3):435-456 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Genetic information is becoming increasingly used in modern life, extending beyond medicine to familial history, forensics and more. Following this expansion of use, the effect of genetic information on people’s identity and ultimately people’s quality of life is being explored in a host of different disciplines. While a multidisciplinary approach is commendable and necessary, there is the potential for the multidisciplinarity to produce conceptual misconnection. That is, while experts in one field may understand their use of a term like ‘gene’, ‘identity’ or ‘information’ for experts in another field, the same term may link to a distinctly different concept. These conceptual misconnections not only increase inefficiency in complex organisational practices, but can also have important ethical, legal and social consequences. This paper comes at the problem of conceptual misconnection by clarifying different uses of the terms ‘gene’, ‘identity’ and ‘information’. I start by looking at three different conceptions of the gene; the Instrumental, the Nominal and the Postgenomic Molecular. Secondly, a taxonomy of four different concepts of identity is presented; Numeric, Character, Group and Essentialised, and their use is clarified. A general concept of Information is introduced, and finally three distinct kinds of information are described. I then introduce Concept Creep as an ethical problem that arises from conceptual misconnections. The primary goal of this paper is to reduce the potential for conceptual misconnection when discussing genetic identity and genetic information. This is complimented by three secondary goals—1) to clarify what a conceptual misconnection is, 2) to explain why clarity of use is particularly important to discussions of genes, identity and information and 3) to show how concept creep between different uses of genetic identity and genetic information can have important ethical outcomes.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 94,549

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Genetic information: Important but not “exceptional”. [REVIEW]Ruth Hannah Wilkinson - 2010 - Identity in the Information Society 3 (3):457-472.
Respect for persons, identity, and information technology.Robin S. Dillon - 2010 - Ethics and Information Technology 12 (1):17-28.
A persistent data tracking mechanism for user-centric identity governance.Hidehito Gomi - 2010 - Identity in the Information Society 3 (3):639-656.
Beyond identity?Serge Gutwirth - 2008 - Identity in the Information Society 1 (1):123-133.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-11-18

Downloads
236 (#90,091)

6 months
8 (#529,789)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

The Language of Thought.Jerry A. Fodor - 1975 - Harvard University Press.
After virtue: a study in moral theory.Alasdair C. MacIntyre - 1981 - Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.
Sources of the self: the making of the modern identity.Charles Taylor - 1989 - Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
The meaning of 'meaning'.Hilary Putnam - 1975 - Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7:131-193.

View all 43 references / Add more references