Search

Based on fieldwork carried out at the Early Drug Development Service of a world‐leading cancer institution, our study sheds lights on decision‐making processes at the stage where decisions are made about which clinical trial to pursue and thus which experimental drugs will feed the growing pipeline of molecularly guided therapies and therapeutic strategies available to treating physicians. The paper shows how such collective decision‐making practices by a translational research unit employ formal tools and ad hoc valuation strategies that interweave technical‐scientific matters of concern with patient‐oriented clinical ones, as part of the institutional assetization of biomedical knowledge production. In the process, decision‐making practices in part define the conditions of possibility for the provision of care in what is increasingly becoming a 'clinic of variants.' They do so by reconfiguring on an evolving basis the socio‐material ecosystem through which precision oncology is enacted as a rapidly evolving assemblage of patients, physicians, research and support staff, protocols, molecular markers, drugs and administrative components. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article draws on 2 years' worth of ethnographic observation of team meetings to explore decision‐making in an NHS clinical genomics service. The focus of discussions was on ambiguous genomic results known as VUS or Variants of Uncertain Significance, which may be pathogenic but which also may turn out to be benign. In examining decision‐making around such results, we note how, in contrast to much policy and promotional material in this area, clinicians in these meetings (clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors) place great emphasis on parental phenotypes and whether the parents of a patient share the symptoms and signs of the suspected condition. This information is then combined with the result of genomic tests to decide whether the variant a patient has is responsible for their condition. This article explores the way in which clinicians attempt to flexibly enrol parents into genomic explanations through informal diagnosis of their possible phenotypes and the way in which actually meeting parents allows some clinicians to trump explanations based on documentary or photographic data. The paper sheds light on the way that earlier scholarly understandings of such decisions (around, say dysmorphology) remain relevant and explores claims that laboratory tests overrule clinical decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Classical dilemmas of how to distribute limited resources have been rekindled by the rise of advanced, high‐cost therapies. Building on a case study of a novel gene therapy in neuropaediatric care, this article explores the dilemmas that explicit priority setting can create for frontline professionals and develops a typology of professionals' responses to these dilemmas. Despite political attempts to centralise priority setting and spare health professionals from having to consider treatment costs at the 'bedside', this study shows that concern for economic efficiency and budget control nonetheless need to be handled and balanced against other accountabilities in the daily work of frontline professionals. Contributing to the sociological debate on priority setting and rationing, this study develops an analytical perspective attuned to the relational aspects of frontline work and the challenges related to the balancing of diverging ideas of good conduct. Further, focussing on an empirical field at the forefront of genomic medicine, this study brings the sociological debate on priority setting and rationing up to date with current developments in precision medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]