Statements by scientific organizations can, and should, shape society.

Statements based on the best current scientific data and analyses that bear directly on societal issues, especially ones that are critical to societal justice, equity, and health, are practical responsibilities of professional scientific organizations. And they often have impact.

Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Genetic Testing and Personal Insurance Products in Australia.

The expansion of genetic and genomic testing in clinical practice and research, and the growing market for direct-to-consumer genomic testing has led to increased awareness about the impact of this form of testing on insurance. Genetic or genomic information can be requested by providers of mutually rated insurance products, who may then use it when setting premiums or determining eligibility for cover under a particular product. Australian insurers are subject to relevant legislation and an industry led standard that was updated in 2019 to introduce a moratorium on the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting for policies

Facing Our History-Building an Equitable Future.

This report is the product of a major year-long initiative to acknowledge and reckon with past injustice, as well as progress toward justice, within the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) and the broader field of human genetics. Approved by the ASHG Board of Directors and launched in 2021, the initiative was sparked by the social and racial reckonings in 2020. The ASHG Bboard of Directors asked ASHG to acknowledge and provide examples of how human genetics theories and knowledge "have been used to feed and justify racism, eugenics, and other systemic forms of injustice, and to focus specifically on examples of ASHG's role in fostering or failing to rebuke harms and on steps the Society could take to address findings." The initiative was undertaken with support and input from an expert panel of human geneticists, historians, clinician-scientists, equity scholars, and social scientists and included a research and environmental scan, four expert panel meetings, and a community dialogue as its main activities.

Words matter: The language of difference in human genetics.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in academia are leading publishers and journals to re-examine their use of terminology for commonly used scientific variables. This reassessment of language is particularly important for human genetics, which is focused on identifying and explaining differences between individuals and populations. Recent guidance on the use of terms and symbols in clinical practice, research, and publications is beginning to acknowledge the ways that language and concepts of difference can be not only inaccurate but also harmful. To stop perpetuating historical wrongs, those of us who conduct and publish genetic research and provide genetic health care must understand the context of the terms we use and why some usages should be discontinued. In this article, we summarize critiques of terminology describing disability, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, and ancestry in research publications, laboratory reports, diagnostic codes, and pedigrees. We also highlight recommendations for alternative language that aims to make genetics more inclusive, rigorous, and ethically sound. Even though norms of acceptable language use are ever changing, it is the responsibility of genetics professionals to uncover biases ingrained in professional practice and training and to continually reassess the words we use to describe human difference because they cause harm to patients.

Using human genetics to improve safety assessment of therapeutics.

Human genetics research has discovered thousands of proteins associated with complex and rare diseases. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and studies of Mendelian disease have resulted in an increased understanding of the role of gene function and regulation in human conditions. Although the application of human genetics has been explored primarily as a method to identify potential drug targets and support their relevance to disease in humans, there is increasing interest in using genetic data to identify potential safety liabilities of modulating a given target. Human genetic variants can be used as a model to anticipate the effect of lifelong modulation of therapeutic targets and identify the potential risk for on-target adverse events. This approach is particularly useful for non-clinical safety evaluation of novel therapeutics that lack pharmacologically relevant animal models and can contribute to the intrinsic safety profile of a drug target. This Review illustrates applications of human genetics to safety studies during drug discovery and development, including assessing the potential for on- and off-target associated adverse events, carcinogenicity risk assessment, and guiding translational safety study designs and monitoring strategies. A summary of available human genetic resources and recommended best practices is provided. The challenges and future perspectives of translating human genetic information to identify risks for potential drug effects in preclinical and clinical development are discussed.

Polygenic risk, population structure and ongoing difficulties with race in human genetics.

'The Apportionment of Human Diversity' stands as a noteworthy intervention, both for the field of human population genetics as well as in the annals of public communication of science. Despite the widespread uptake of Lewontin's conclusion that racial classification is of 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance', the biomedical research community continues to grapple with whether and how best to account for race in its work. Nowhere is this struggle more apparent than in the latest attempts to translate genetic associations with complex disease risk to clinical use in the form of polygenic risk scores, or PRS. In this perspective piece, we trace current challenges surrounding the appropriate development and clinical application of PRS in diverse patient cohorts to ongoing difficulties deciding which facets of population structure matter, and for what reasons, to human health. Despite numerous analytical innovations, there are reasons that emerge from Lewontin's work to remain sceptical that accounting for population structure in the context of polygenic risk estimation will allow us to more effectively identify and intervene on the significant health disparities which plague marginalized populations around the world. This article is part of the theme issue 'Celebrating 50 years since Lewontin's apportionment of human diversity'.

The characteristics of early-stage research into human genes are substantially different from subsequent research.

Throughout the last 2 decades, several scholars observed that present day research into human genes rarely turns toward genes that had not already been extensively investigated in the past. Guided by hypotheses derived from studies of science and innovation, we present here a literature-wide data-driven meta-analysis to identify the specific scientific and organizational contexts that coincided with early-stage research into human genes throughout the past half century. We demonstrate that early-stage research into human genes differs in team size, citation impact, funding mechanisms, and publication outlet, but that generalized insights derived from studies of science and innovation only partially apply to early-stage research into human genes. Further, we demonstrate that, presently, genome biology accounts for most of the initial early-stage research, while subsequent early-stage research can engage other life sciences fields. We therefore anticipate that the specificity of our findings will enable scientists and policymakers to better promote early-stage research into human genes and increase overall innovation within the life sciences.

Construction and utilization of human genetic resources in large population cohorts.

In the era of big data and precision medicine, large population cohort studies are one of the preferred designs for studying the etiology of chronic diseases, and cohort genetic resources have become important strategic resources of China. Promoting the standardized construction and utilization of cohort genetic resources can effectively promote the original innovation of research and technological development in the field of biomedicine, and make full use of the rich genetic resources of China. To provide a reference for the construction and utilization of genetic resources in the cohort research in China, we took the Taizhou Longitudinal Study (TZL) as an example and introduced the principles, methods, standard system, and practical experience of the collection, preservation, and shared utilization of genetic resources in the process of the cohort construction.

Using the PhenX Toolkit to Select Standard Measurement Protocols for Your Research Study.

The goals of PhenX (consensus measures for Phenotypes and eXposures) are to promote the use of standard measurement protocols and to help investigators identify opportunities for collaborative research and cross-study analysis, thus increasing the impact of individual studies. The PhenX Toolkit (https://www.phenxtoolkit.org/) offers high-quality, well-established measurement protocols to assess phenotypes and exposures in studies with human participants. The Toolkit contains protocols representing 29 research domains and 6 specialty collections of protocols that add depth to the Toolkit in specific research areas (e.g., COVID-19, Social Determinants of Health [SDoH], Blood Sciences Research [BSR], Mental Health Research [MHR], Tobacco Regulatory Research [TRR], and Substance Abuse and Addiction [SAA]). Protocols are recommended for inclusion in the PhenX Toolkit by Working Groups of domain experts using a consensus process that includes input from the scientific community. For each PhenX protocol, the Toolkit provides a detailed description, the rationale for inclusion, and supporting documentation. Users can browse protocols in the Toolkit, search the Toolkit using keywords, or use Browse Protocols Tree to identify protocols of interest. The PhenX Toolkit provides data dictionaries compatible with the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP), Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) data submission compatibility, and data collection worksheets to help investigators incorporate PhenX protocols into their study design. The PhenX Toolkit provides resources to help users identify published studies that used PhenX protocols. © 2021 The Authors. Current Protocols published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol: Using the PhenX Toolkit to support or extend study design.

The impact of an audience response system on a summative assessment, a controlled field study.

BACKGROUND: Audience response systems allow to activate the audience and to receive a direct feedback of participants during lectures. Modern systems do not require any proprietary hardware anymore. Students can directly respond on their smartphone. Several studies reported about a high level of satisfaction of students when audience response systems are used, however their impact on learning success is still unclear. METHODS: In order to evaluate the impact of an audience response system on the learning success we implemented the audience response system eduVote into a seminar series and performed a controlled crossover study on its impact on assessments. One hundred fifty-four students in nine groups were taught the same content. In four groups, eduVote was integrated for the first topic while five groups were taught this topic without the audience response systems. For a second topic, the groups were switched: Those groups who were taught before using eduVote were now taught without the audience response system and vice versa. We then analysed the impact of the audience response system on the students' performance in a summative assessment and specifically focused on questions dealing with the topic, for which the audience response system was used during teaching. We further assessed the students' perception on the use of eduVote using questionnaires. RESULTS: In our controlled crossover study we could not confirm an impact of the audience response system eduVote on long-term persistence i.e. the students' performance in the summative assessment. Our evaluation revealed that students assessed the use of eduVote very positively, felt stronger engaged and better motivated to deal with the respective topics and would prefer their integration into additional courses as well. In particular we identified that students who feel uncomfortable with answering questions in front of others profit from the use of an audience response system during teaching. CONCLUSIONS: Audience response systems motivate and activate students and increase their engagement during classes. However, their impact on long-term persistence and summative assessments may be limited. Audience response systems, however, specifically allow activating students which cannot be reached by the traditional way of asking questions without such an anonymous tool.

The Ethics of Precision Rationing: Human Genetics and the Need for Debate on Stratifying Access to Medication.

Rising prices for new, transformative therapies are challenging health systems around the world, leading many payers and providers to begin rationing access to treatments, even in the countries that have been most resistant to doing so. This is the case for direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV). However, little attention has been paid to the increasing role that human genetics might play in rationing decisions. Researchers have already proposed that genetic markers associated with spontaneous HCV clearance could be used to restrict DAA access for some patients, although treatment would be medically beneficial for those patients. Would such forms of rationing present a form of genetic discrimination? And what of the public health implications of these approaches? Here we present an ethical analysis of such proposals for "precision rationing" and raise 4 key areas of concern. We argue that ethical issues arising in this area are not substantively different from the pressing ethical issues regarding rationing and discrimination more broadly, but provide important impetus for motivating broad public debate to find ethically sound ways of managing genomics and new expensive medications.

[Management of Data Sharing of Human Genetic Resources and Its Enlightenment to China].

Human genetic resources are valuable for life science research and pharmaceutical industry.Competitions for human genetic resources and the relevant techniques and industries have increasingly become intense among countries with the the implementation of precision medicine strategy and the maturity of gene editing technology.In the context of scientific progress and efficiency,the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,the most important international economic organization,has proposed solutions to technological development and research paradigm changes from the perspective of national and global public interests.The United States,Japan,the United Kingdom,and some other developed countries have also released their policies and guidelines on the sharing of genetic resource data.In this article we analyzed these policies and guidelines,with an attempt to further improve the administration of human genetic resource sharing in China and promote the legal sharing and effective use of these resources.

Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Genetic Testing and Personal Insurance Products in Australia.

The expansion of genetic and genomic testing in clinical practice and research and the growing market for at home personal genome testing has led to increased awareness about the impact of this form of testing on insurance. Genetic or genomic information can be requested by providers of mutually rated insurance products, who may then use it when setting premiums or determining eligibility for cover under a particular product. Australian insurers are subject to relevant legislation and an industry standard that was updated in late 2016. In 2018, the Human Genetics Society of Australasia updated its position statement on genetic testing and life insurance to account for these changes and to increase the scope of the statement to include a wider scope of insurance products that are not rated according to community risk, such as life, critical care, and income protection products. Recommendations include that providers of professional education involving genetics should include ethical, legal, and social aspects of insurance discrimination in their curricula; that the Australian government take a more active role in regulating use of genetic information in personal insurance, including enacting a moratorium on use of genetic test results; that information obtained in the course of a research project be excluded; and that there is improved engagement between the insurance industry, regulators, and the genetics profession.

Precision medicine at the crossroads.

There are bioethical, institutional, economic, legal, and cultural obstacles to creating the robust-precompetitive-data resource that will be required to advance the vision of "precision medicine," the ability to use molecular data to target therapies to patients for whom they offer the most benefit at the least risk. Creation of such an "information commons" was the central recommendation of the 2011 report Toward Precision Medicine issued by a committee of the National Research Council of the USA (Committee on a Framework for Development of a New Taxonomy of Disease; National Research Council. Toward precision medicine: building a knowledge network for biomedical research and a new taxonomy of disease. 2011). In this commentary, I review the rationale for creating an information commons and the obstacles to doing so; then, I endorse a path forward based on the dynamic consent of research subjects interacting with researchers through trusted mediators. I assert that the advantages of the proposed system overwhelm alternative ways of handling data on the phenotypes, genotypes, and environmental exposures of individual humans; hence, I argue that its creation should be the central policy objective of early efforts to make precision medicine a reality.