Loading publication...

Noodle always counts identifier-free feature events for service operation. With your permission, Google Analytics can also estimate audience and engagement. Search text, publication identifiers, cookies, IP addresses and browser fingerprints are never included in Noodle's first-party event counters.

Privacy details

Article

Balancing risks and benefits of deception in assessing genetic screening utilization.

American journal of health behavior - 1 Jan 2000

Thombs D L, Mahoney C A, Olds R S

Abstract excerpt

OBJECTIVE: To advocate that research using intentional deception is sometimes appropriate. METHODS: A deception paradigm created to assess utilization of genetic screening for alcoholism susceptibility is reviewed in the context of competing ethical obligations and objections to the procedure. CO...

Read the complete abstract on PubMed

Topics

Share this publication in a Topic to start or enrich a Post.

Share to Alcoholism
Share to Genetic Testing
Share to Human Genome Project

Methodology Data sources Editorial policy Privacy About Contact Helena Bioinformatics

Share to Research Design

Share to Students

Share to United States

Share to Universities

Source

Identifiers

PMID: 11297039
DOI: 10.5993/ajhb.25.2.2

Provenance

PubMed metadata and Literature Corpus relationships. Corpus snapshot updated 1 Sept 2026. Prepared record publication-11297039-2026-09-01.1. Manifest publication-graph-cohort-2026-09-01.1.

Source receipt: PubMed via Helena Literature Corpus, retrieved 1 Sept 2026.

Related research

Semantic proximity does not establish scientific evidence.

Research trail→

Click a neighbor to travelStep 1 · 12 closest

Balancing risks and benefits of deception in assessing genetic screening utilization.PMID 11297039Read ↗

Ethical Guidelines for Genetic Research on Alcohol Addiction and Its Applications.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Explaining Differential Trust of DNA Forensic Technology: Grounded Assessment or Inexplicable Paranoia?Semantic proximity Read ↗

Verification of consumers' experiences and perceptions of genetic discrimination and its impact on utilization of genetic testing.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Genetic knowledge and moral responsibility: ambiguity at the interface of genetic research and clinical practiceSemantic proximity Read ↗

You are born with your genes: justice and protection against discrimination in the use of genetic information.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Law & psychiatry: Genetic discrimination in mental disorders: the impact of the genetic information nondiscrimination act.Semantic proximity Read ↗

First, do no harm.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Ethical, social and legal implications of genetic testing in liver disease.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Screening workers for genetic hypersusceptibility: potential ethical, legal, and social implications from the Human Genome Project.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Truth and confidentiality without harm.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Distinguishing genetic from nongenetic medical tests: some implications for antidiscrimination legislation.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Diagnosing moral disorder: the discovery and evolution of fetal alcohol syndromeSemantic proximity Read ↗

⌁Select a neighboring publication to make it the new centre.