Search

Health equity is the state in which everyone has fair and just opportunities to attain their highest level of health. The field of human genomics has fallen short in increasing health equity, largely because the diversity of the human population has been inadequately reflected among participants of genomics research. This lack of diversity leads to disparities that can have scientific and clinical consequences. Achieving health equity related to genomics will require greater effort in addressing inequities within the field. As part of the commitment of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) to advancing health equity, it convened experts in genomics and health equity research to make recommendations and performed a review of current literature to identify the landscape of gaps and opportunities at the interface between human genomics and health equity research. This Perspective describes these findings and examines health equity within the context of human genomics and genomic medicine.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are promising for identifying common variant‐related inheritance for psychiatric conditions but their integration into clinical practice depends on their clinical utility and psychiatrists' understanding of PRS. Our online survey explored these issues with 276 professionals working in psychiatric genetics (RR: 19%). Overall, participants demonstrated knowledge of how to interpret PRS results. Their performance on knowledge‐based questions was positively correlated with participants' self‐reported familiarity with PRS (r= 0.21, p= 0.0006) although differences were not statistically significant (Wald Chi‐square = 3.29, df = 1, p= 0.07). However, only 48.9% of all participants answered all knowledge questions correctly. Many participants (56.5%), especially researchers (42%), indicated having at least occasional conversations about the role of genetics in psychiatric conditions with patients and/or family members. Most participants (62.7%) indicated that PRS are not yet sufficiently robust for assessment of susceptibility to schizophrenia; most significant obstacles were low predictive power and lack of population diversity in available PRS (selected, respectively, by 53.6% and 29.3% of participants). Nevertheless, 89.8% of participants were optimistic about the use of PRS in the next 10 years, suggesting a belief that current shortcomings could be addressed. Our findings inform about the perceptions of psychiatric professionals regarding PRS and the application of PRS in psychiatry.

Whole genome and exome sequencing (WGS/ WES) techniques raise hope for a new scale of prediction, prevention, and diagnosis of genetic conditions, and improved care for children. Although still in [...], Whole genome and exome sequencing (WGS/WES) techniques raise hope for a new scale of diagnosis, prevention, and prediction of genetic conditions, and improved care for children. For these hopes to materialize, extensive genomic research with children will be needed. However, the use of WGS/WES in pediatric research settings raises considerable challenges for families, researchers, and policy development. In particular, the possibility that these techniques will generate genetic findings unrelated to the primary goal of sequencing has stirred intense debate about whether, which, how, and when these secondary or incidental findings (SFs) should be returned to parents and minors. The debate is even more pronounced when the subjects are adolescents, for whom decisions about return of SFs may have particular implications. In this paper, we consider the rise of "genomic citizenship" and the main challenges that arise for these stakeholders: adolescents' involvement in decisions relating to return of genomic SFs, the types of SFs that should be offered, privacy protections, and communication between researchers and adolescents about SFs. We argue that adolescents' involvement in genomic SF-related decisions acknowledges their status as valuable stakeholders without detracting from broader familial interests, and promotes more informed genomic citizens.

I. THE PHENOMENON OF POSTHUMOUS CONCEPTION II. POSTHUMOUS CONCEPTION IN COURTS III. THE LEGAL DISCOURSE ON POSTHUMOUSLY CONCEIVED CHILDREN IV. POSTHUMOUSLY CONCEIVED CHILDREN A. Parentage Acknowledgement B. Family Structures C. [...]

Blind and deaf individuals comprise large populations that often experience health disparities, with those from marginalized gender, racial, ethnic and low-socioeconomic communities commonly experiencing compounded health inequities. Including these populations in precision medicine research is critical for scientific benefits to accrue to them. We assessed representation of blind and deaf people in the All of Us Research Program (AoURP) 2018–2023 cohort of participants who provided electronic health records and compared it with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2018 national estimates by key demographic characteristics and intersections thereof. Blind and deaf AoURP participants are considerably underrepresented in the cohort, especially among working-age adults (younger than age 65 years), as well as Asian and multi-racial participants. Analyses show compounded underrepresentation at the intersection of multiple marginalization (that is, racial or ethnic minoritized group, female sex, low education and low income), most substantively for working-age blind participants identifying as Black or African American female with education levels lower than high school (representing one-fifth of their national prevalence). Underrepresentation raises concerns about the generalizability of findings in studies that use these data and limited benefits for the already underserved blind and deaf populations.

In recognition of their status as a health disparities population, there is growing emphasis on conducting research inclusive of adults with intellectual disability to generate new knowledge and opportunities to improve health and equity. Yet they are often excluded from research, and human research participant protection experts and researchers lack agreement on effective consent protocols for their inclusion.

Private companies have begun offering services to allow parents undergoing in-vitro fertilisation to screen embryos for genetic risk of complex diseases, including psychiatric disorders. This procedure, called polygenic embryo screening, raises several difficult scientific and ethical issues, as discussed in this Personal View. Polygenic embryo screening depends on the statistical properties of polygenic risk scores, which are complex and not well studied in the context of this proposed clinical application. The clinical, social, and ethical implications of polygenic embryo screening have barely been discussed among relevant stakeholders. To our knowledge, the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics is the first professional biomedical organisation to issue a statement regarding polygenic embryo screening. For the reasons discussed in this Personal View, the Society urges caution and calls for additional research and oversight on the use of polygenic embryo screening.

Deaf/hard of hearing (HoH) individuals can benefit from precision medicine research (PMR) but are underrepresented in mainstream health research and may experience barriers to participation. Understanding their views and concerns about PMR can inform processes to foster inclusion in future studies and reduce health disparities.

The COVID-19 pandemic has taken a substantial human, social and economic toll globally, but its impact on Black/African Americans, Latinx, and American Indian/Alaska Native communities in the U.S. is unconscionable. As the U.S. continues to combat the current COVID-19 cycle and prepares for future pandemics, it will be critical to learn from and rectify past and contemporary wrongs. Drawing on experiences in genomic research and intersecting areas in medical ethics, health disparities, and human rights, this article considers three key COVID-19-related issues: research to identify remedies; testing, contact tracing and surveillance; and lingering health needs and disability. It provides a pathway for the future: community engagement to develop culturally-sensitive responses to the myriad genomic/bioethical dilemmas that arise. and the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to transition the country from its contemporary state of segregation in healthcare and health outcomes into an equitable and prosperous society for all. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psychiatric genetics research is improving our understanding of the biological underpinnings of neurodiversity and mental illness. Using psychiatric genetics in ways that maximize benefits and minimize harms to individuals and society depends largely on how the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of psychiatric genetics are managed. The International Society of Psychiatric Genetics (ISPG) is the largest international organization dedicated to psychiatric genetics. Given its history, membership, and international reach, we believe the ISPG is well‐equipped to contribute to the resolution of these ELSI challenges. As such, we recently created the ISPG Ethics Committee, an interdisciplinary group comprised of psychiatric genetics researchers, clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, mental health professionals, patients, patient advocates, bioethicists, and lawyers. This article highlights key ELSI challenges identified by the ISPG Ethics Committee to be of paramount importance for the ethical translation of psychiatric research into society in three contexts: research settings, clinical settings, and legal proceedings. For each of these arenas, we identify and discuss pressing psychiatric genetics ELSI dilemmas that merit attention and require action. The goal is to increase awareness about psychiatric genetics ELSI issues and encourage dialogue and action among stakeholders.

About 37 million people in the United States have chronic kidney disease, a disease that encompasses multiple causes. About 10% or more of kidney diseases in adults and as many as 70% of selected chronic kidney diseases in children are expected to be explained by genetic causes. Despite the advances in genetic testing and an increasing understanding of the genetic bases of certain kidney diseases, genetic testing in nephrology lags behind other medical fields. More understanding of the benefits and logistics of genetic testing is needed to advance the implementation of genetic testing in chronic kidney diseases. Accordingly, the National Kidney Foundation convened a Working Group of experts with diverse expertise in genetics, nephrology, and allied fields to develop recommendations for genetic testing for monogenic disorders and to identify genetic risk factors for oligogenic and polygenic causes of kidney diseases. Algorithms for clinical decision making on genetic testing and a road map for advancing genetic testing in kidney diseases were generated. An important aspect of this initiative was the use of a modified Delphi process to reach group consensus on the recommendations. The recommendations and resources described herein provide support to nephrologists and allied health professionals to advance the use of genetic testing for diagnosis and screening of kidney diseases.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have potential to improve health care by identifying individuals that have elevated risk for common complex conditions. Use of PRS in clinical practice, however, requires careful assessment of the needs and capabilities of patients, providers, and health care systems. The electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) network is conducting a collaborative study which will return PRS to 25,000 pediatric and adult participants. All participants will receive a risk report, potentially classifying them as high risk (∼2-10% per condition) for 1 or more of 10 conditions based on PRS. The study population is enriched by participants from racial and ethnic minority populations, underserved populations, and populations who experience poorer medical outcomes.

Assessing the risk of common, complex diseases requires consideration of clinical risk factors as well as monogenic and polygenic risks, which in turn may be reflected in family history. Returning risks to individuals and providers may influence preventive care or use of prophylactic therapies for those individuals at high genetic risk.

The success of genomic medicine hinges on the implementation of genetic knowledge in clinical settings. In novel subspecialties, it requires that clinicians refer patients to genetic evaluation or testing, however referral is likely to be affected by genetic knowledge.

Although scientific breakthroughs can promote health equity, there is concern that adults with intellectual disability, a health disparities population, may be excluded from clinical trials.

This article examines one of the least explored aspects of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) – that is, the rights of ART-born children. Taking an international human rights law perspective, the article considers two arguable clashes of rights that have been raised with regard to ART-born children: the use of ART as child abuse and genetic selection of offspring. It further explores whether and how adding children's perspective to the discourse may enrich the debates and inform the legal policies to be adopted in this regard. The argument advanced is that the “rights discourse” that has taken center stage in the debate over ART is insufficient to resolve bioethical dilemmas that arise. Including children's perspectives shows that it is necessary to re-conceptualize the discussion so that it is grounded in and incorporates broader familial interests and relationships, or “family ethics”. More broadly, the article illuminates the prominent role of the principle of non-discrimination in international human rights law and reinforces the importance of greater social responsibility in promoting sexual health and inclusion.

Growing genomic knowledge has provided immense insight into the aetiology and mechanisms of kidney diseases but raises ethical issues that risk the successful implementation of genomic medicine. We highlight such issues in two contexts: the return of individual genetic results from nephrology research and preimplantation genetic diagnosis for heritable kidney diseases.