Review and special articleWill Genomics Widen or Help Heal the Schism Between Medicine and Public Health?
Introduction
More than 4 years after the completion of the Human Genome Project, researchers continue to express both excitement and skepticism about the near-term applications of genomics in health care and disease prevention.3, 4, 5 Health applications of genomic research remain focused mainly on individually rare, single gene disorders,6 which account for nearly all of the 1300 or more genetic tests currently available for practice or research use.7 Despite impressive advances in gene discovery and characterization, researchers have voiced reservations about the potential benefits of medical applications of genomics,8, 9 pointing out the complex relationships among genetic variation, the environment, and disease, and the limited clinical validity and utility of genetic risk prediction. They also note that prematurely optimistic claims by researchers, the media, and test developers may lead to unrealistic consumer expectations and inappropriate use of genetic information. In addition, an over-emphasis on the genetics of human disease may divert attention from the importance of environmental exposures, social structure, and lifestyle factors.8
Skepticism about genomics runs high among some public health practitioners whose traditional domains include control of infectious diseases and chronic disease prevention. Some practitioners perceive genomics research as a low-yield investment at best9, 10 and as a dangerous opportunity cost at worst, which undercuts efforts to address social and environmental causes of ill health.11, 12 In this view, genomic medicine is the enemy of public health.
Some public health scientists view genomics research on common diseases as a low priority because “the major preventable environmental causes of illness and death are tobacco use, unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, excess alcohol use, infections, trauma and exposure to environmental toxins.”9 Some envision the only public health applications of genomics to be population screening, and argue that this approach will remain limited to newborn screening programs.10 Others reject genomics research as an unwarranted extension of the individual risk paradigm.11 They criticize the focus of genomics on individual characteristics on both pragmatic and philosophical grounds, citing its failure to prompt effective public health interventions while “blaming the victim.”11, 13 Advocates of this viewpoint often cite the distinction between prevention in populations and in high-risk individuals, which was set out so eloquently by Geoffrey Rose14; however, Rose was careful to present these approaches as complementary rather than mutually exclusive.
The contribution of genomics to population health in the next 50 years remains uncertain. Some public health advocates contend that interventions based on environmental change will be more effective than those focused on individual behavior change (e.g., for obesity control15). The balance between population-based and individually targeted prevention strategies will become even more important in the genomic era.
Section snippets
The Schism Between Medicine and Public Health
The divide between medicine and public health is a longstanding problem in the United States and in many other countries. Recent comments such as, “[T]here is little need for further integration of genetic services and education into public health especially in countries in which public and private health services are dichotomized,”10 reflect the “schism” described by Kerr White, who is a founder of the field of health services research.1 In his 1991 book, Healing the Schism: Epidemiology,
Genomics, Public Health, and Population Health
Public health has traditionally been identified with state, federal and local public health agencies; however, a recent, more inclusive view defines public health professionals as all those who work on improving health from a population perspective.33 According to this definition, “public health professionals” include not only those employed in government but also those employed in healthcare delivery, academia, community organizations, and the private sector; together, they are actors in the
A Framework for a Medicine–Public Health Partnership in the Genomic Era
In this section, we discuss a framework for an enhanced partnership between medicine and public health that can guide translation from research to practice in the genomics era. This framework consists of four principal, overlapping areas that contribute to the discovery and application of genomics-based knowledge: a focus on prevention, a population perspective, a commitment to evidence-based knowledge integration, and an emphasis on health services research. We also suggest that this
Conclusion
Advances in genomics—especially in relation to common diseases—are increasing the interaction and the interdependence between the traditional healthcare delivery system, which focuses on treatment of individuals, and the public health system, which focuses on prevention and control in populations. This enhanced interaction is creating a shared “population health” focus on using genomic advances appropriately and effectively to promote health and to prevent disease.
Because the field of genomics
References (74)
Genetics and genomics in practice: the continuum from genetic disease to genetic information in health and disease
Genet Med
(2003)- et al.
Public health impact of genetic tests at the end of the 20th century
Genet Med
(2001) - et al.
The path from genome-based research to population health: development of an international public health genomics network
Genet Med
(2006) Colon cancer screening in 2005: status and challenges
Gastroenterology
(2005)- et al.
Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process
Am J Prev Med
(2001) Education for health professionals and the public
Am J Hum Genet
(2006)- et al.
Impact of direct-to-consumer advertising for hereditary breast cancer testing on genetic services at a managed care organization: a naturally-occurring experiment
Genet Med
(2005) - et al.
Genetic testing for susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer: evaluating the impact of a direct-to-consumer marketing campaign on physicians’ knowledge and practices
Genet Med
(2006) - et al.
Hemochromatosis-associated morbidity in the United States: an analysis of the National Hospital Discharge Survey, 1979–1997
Gene Med
(2001) - et al.
Contribution of different HFE genotypes to iron overload disease: a pooled analysis
Genet Med
(2000)
Penetrance of 845GA (C282Y) HFE hereditary haemochromatosis mutation in the USA
Lancet
Healing the schism: epidemiology, medicine, and the public’s health
Can medicine and public health partner in the public interest?
Health Aff
Realizing the promise of genomics in biomedical research
JAMA
The human genome project: a false dawn?
BMJ
Genomic priorities and public health
Science
What role for public health in genetics and vice versa?
Community Genet
Theorizing about causes at the individual level while estimating effects at the population level: implications for prevention
Epidemiology
Dissecting complex disease: the quest for the philosopher’s stone?
Int J Epidemiol
Traditional epidemiology, modern epidemiology, and public health
Am J Public Health
Sick individuals and sick populations
Int J Epidemiol
Strategies for preventing obesity
BMJ
Focus on health communication: placing public health in perspective
Editorial: transforming public health through community partnerships
Prev Chron Dis
Improving health in the community: a role for performance monitoring
Medicine–public health collaboration tested
JAMA
Genes, behavior and the social environment: moving beyond the nature/nurture debate
Translational medicine: a two-way road
J Trans Med
From bench to clinic and back: perspectives on the 1st IQPC translational research conference
J Trans Med
The NIH roadmap
Science
Translational and clinical science: time for a new vision
N Engl J Med
Translation of research into practice: why we can’t “just do it.”
J Am Board Fam Pract
Knowledge translation versus knowledge integrationA funder’s perspective
J Cont Educ Health Profess
Shattuck lecture: clinical research to clinical practice—lost in translation?
N Engl J Med
Implications of genomics for public health
Cited by (62)
Family Health History–Based Cancer Prevention Training for Community Health Workers
2021, American Journal of Preventive MedicineTranslational research in drug discovery: Tiny steps before the giant leap
2021, Translational Biotechnology: A Journey from Laboratory to ClinicsUnderstanding the potential of state-based public health genomics programs to mitigate disparities in access to clinical genetic services
2019, Genetics in MedicineCitation Excerpt :Second, it ignores questions about whether such interventions would be equitably available to everyone who might need them. Moreover, although Rose contends that a population-level strategy could potentially address underlying social determinants of health, some public health scholars remain skeptical about this claim,12 especially with respect to genetic medicine.13-15 McLaren et al., for example, argue that any strategy requiring individuals to take action (e.g., behavioral changes) will widen disparities between those who have wealth and resources and those who do not.16
Genetics and genomics in public health
2018, Emery and Rimoin's Principles and Practice of Medical Genetics and Genomics: Clinical Principles and ApplicationsGenomics and Traditional Chinese Medicine
2016, Genomics and Society: Ethical, Legal, Cultural and Socioeconomic ImplicationsGenomics and Traditional Chinese Medicine
2015, Genomics and Society: Ethical, Legal, Cultural and Socioeconomic Implications