Not-So-Personalized Medicine
By Howard Brody,
Hooked: Ethics, Medicine, and Pharma
| 08. 23. 2014
Jack E. James, who appears to hail from either Reykjavik University in Iceland or the National University of Ireland in Galway, or both, kindly sent me a copy of a paper published in June in the European Journal of Epidemiology.
The paper addresses "personalized medicine" from the perspectives of Julian Tudor Hart's "inverse care law" and Don Light and yours truly's "inverse benefit law."
James starts off reminding us of the promise of personalized medicine: instead of "one size fits all," we will have "the right drug to the right patient at the right time." Instead of 100 people getting a drug, and 5 of them having a nasty allergic reaction to it, we'd get the message in advance that these particular 5 folks should not be given that drug. Personalized medicine seems to be quite effective nowadays, for example, in breast cancer treatment, where patients are tested and their tumors are found to be sensitive or insensitive to various chemotherapies before they are administered.
James goes on to discuss personalized medicine in some depth...
Related Articles
By Darren Incorvaia, Fierce Biotech | 07.16.2026
Jennifer Doudna, Ph.D., the Nobel Laureate best known for co-inventing the CRISPR system that has become the foundation for gene editing, is dipping her toes into a new, buzzy field: AI-powered protein design.
In a new paper, published today...
By Risa Cromer, The Conversation | 07.17.2026
By Emily Packard Dawson and Lainie Friedman Ross , The Hastings Center for Bioethics | 07.16.2026
Major news outlets recently reported – based on a bioRxiv preprint – that scientists had edited genes in human embryos with “startling precision.” The scientists’ decision to release this work ahead of peer review, coupled with the extensive media coverage...
Media coverage of recent developments in embryo gene editing might seem to suggest that gene-edited babies are close to becoming a reality. As tech billionaires eager to profit off of techno-eugenics invest in “designer baby” technologies, attempts to normalize heritable genome editing – which remains unsafe and raises significant ethical and societal concerns – are especially dangerous. It’s worth taking a closer look at these developments and what they mean, in a way that pushes back on narratives normalizing the...