Joon-Ho Yu1, Janelle S Taylor2, Karen L Edwards3, Stephanie M Fullerton4. 1. Senior Fellow, Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Box 356320, 1959 NE Pacific St. HSB RR349, Seattle, WA 98195, joonhoyu@u.washington.edu. 2. Associate Professor, University of Washington - Anthropology, Seattle, WA, jstaylor@u.washington.edu. 3. Professor, University of Washington - Epidemiology, Seattle, WA, keddy@u.washington.edu. 4. Associate Professor, University of Washington - Bioethics & Humanities, Seattle, WA, smfllrtn@u.washington.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ancestry estimation serves as a tool to identify genetic contributions to disease but may contribute to racial discrimination and stigmatization. We sought to understand user perspectives on the benefits and harms of ancestry estimation to inform research practice and contribute to debates about the use of race and ancestry in genetics. METHODS: Key informant interviews with 22 scientists were conducted to examine scientists' understandings of the benefits and harms of ancestry estimation. RESULTS: Three main perspectives were observed among key informant scientists who use ancestry estimation in genetic epidemiology research. Population geneticists self identified as educators who controlled the meaning and application of ancestry estimation in research. Clinician-researchers were optimistic about the application of ancestry estimation to individualized risk assessment and personalized medicine. Epidemiologists remained ambivalent toward ancestry estimation and suggested a continued role for race in their research. CONCLUSIONS: We observed an imbalance of control over the meaning and application of ancestry estimation among disciplines that may result in unwarranted or premature translation of ancestry estimation into medicine and public health. Differences in disciplinary perspectives need to be addressed if translational benefits of genetic ancestry estimation are to be realized.
BACKGROUND: Ancestry estimation serves as a tool to identify genetic contributions to disease but may contribute to racial discrimination and stigmatization. We sought to understand user perspectives on the benefits and harms of ancestry estimation to inform research practice and contribute to debates about the use of race and ancestry in genetics. METHODS: Key informant interviews with 22 scientists were conducted to examine scientists' understandings of the benefits and harms of ancestry estimation. RESULTS: Three main perspectives were observed among key informant scientists who use ancestry estimation in genetic epidemiology research. Population geneticists self identified as educators who controlled the meaning and application of ancestry estimation in research. Clinician-researchers were optimistic about the application of ancestry estimation to individualized risk assessment and personalized medicine. Epidemiologists remained ambivalent toward ancestry estimation and suggested a continued role for race in their research. CONCLUSIONS: We observed an imbalance of control over the meaning and application of ancestry estimation among disciplines that may result in unwarranted or premature translation of ancestry estimation into medicine and public health. Differences in disciplinary perspectives need to be addressed if translational benefits of genetic ancestry estimation are to be realized.
Entities:
Keywords:
bioethics; continental population groups; genetics; interdisciplinary communication; translational research
Authors: Danielle Frank; Thomas H Gallagher; Sherrill L Sellers; Lisa A Cooper; Eboni G Price; Adebola O Odunlami; Vence L Bonham Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Alkes L Price; Nick J Patterson; Robert M Plenge; Michael E Weinblatt; Nancy A Shadick; David Reich Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2006-07-23 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Rami Nassir; Roman Kosoy; Chao Tian; Phoebe A White; Lesley M Butler; Gabriel Silva; Rick Kittles; Marta E Alarcon-Riquelme; Peter K Gregersen; John W Belmont; Francisco M De La Vega; Michael F Seldin Journal: BMC Genet Date: 2009-07-24 Impact factor: 2.797
Authors: Alice B Popejoy; Deborah I Ritter; Kristy Crooks; Erin Currey; Stephanie M Fullerton; Lucia A Hindorff; Barbara Koenig; Erin M Ramos; Elena P Sorokin; Hannah Wand; Mathew W Wright; James Zou; Christopher R Gignoux; Vence L Bonham; Sharon E Plon; Carlos D Bustamante Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 4.878