Philosophy of science
Does personalized medicine personalize the person?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Personalized medicine is an umbrella of molecular labels that still presupposes a particular concept of the person; judging its success means stepping outside advocate-versus-cynic talk.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
'Personalized' is a contested concept, not just a technology.
Personalized medicine has little effective unity under its many labels (molecular, stratified, precision), and promising to personalize care already assumes a concept of the person; assessment must go beyond the advocate-versus-cynic split.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
The gene-therapy and personalized-medicine papers both analyse medical concepts, but one recommends context-specific definitions for practice while the other argues the underlying concept of the person must be settled first; this is a difference of emphasis rather than a direct conflict.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
The gene-therapy and personalized-medicine papers both analyse medical concepts, but one recommends context-specific definitions for practice while the other argues the underlying concept of the person must be settled first; this is a difference of emphasis rather than a direct conflict.
History
When this study was placed
Dated entries from the concept change log — when this paper was added or removed as support, challenge, or qualifier on a claim.
Placed as supporting evidence on Philosophy of science
Personalized medicine has little effective unity under its many labels (molecular, stratified, precision), and promising to personalize care already assumes a concept of the person; assessment must go beyond the advocate-versus-cynic split.
Placed as supporting evidence on Philosophy of science
The gene-therapy and personalized-medicine papers both analyse medical concepts, but one recommends context-specific definitions for practice while the other argues the underlying concept of the person must be settled first; this is a difference of emphasis rather than a direct conflict.
Inspect source passages
Does personalized medicine personalize the person?
These passages occur verbatim in the stored paper text. They support the points listed below; they do not verify every statement in the explanation.
Public story?
future of health care is personalized medicine – or so we learn from many articles, advertisements and policy documents available in the scientific and pop
Aliases?
molecular, pharmaco-genetic, stratified, individualized, and precision medicine. In fact, at least a dozen other labels are used []. Although originally co
Key findings
There is little effective unity under the umbrella. Privacy challenges arise. Assessment has to leave the ardent-advocate versus cynical-critic dichotomy. Personalized medicine’s impact on personalization is the real issue, not the slogan.
Methodology
The authors map aliases (molecular, pharmacogenetic, stratified, precision), list epistemic and ethical questions including whether it is a paradigm shift, and argue that promising to personalize care already assumes what a person is.
Limitations
This is conceptual, not a trial of a companion diagnostic. It does not measure how often ‘precision’ drugs work.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.