Compassion and equity-focused clinical genomics training for health professional learners.

There remains an urgent need for expanded genomics training in undergraduate medical education, especially as genetic and genomic assessments become increasingly important in primary care and routine clinical practice across specialties. Physician trainees continue to report feeling poorly prepared to provide effective consultation or interpretation of genomic test results. Here we report on the development, pilot implementation, and evaluation of an elective offering for pre-clinical medical students called the Sanford Precision Health Scholars Immersive Learning Experience (PHS), which was designed leveraging genetic counseling expertise as one means to address this need. This 9-week course, piloted in Fall 2021 at UC San Diego, afforded students the opportunity to build technical skills and competencies in clinical genomics while identifying, addressing, and engaging with pervasive health disparities in genomics. Interactive exercises focused students' learning on strategies for empathic and compassionate patient interactions while supporting the application of concepts and knowledge to future practice. Upon completion of the course, participants reported increases in confidence related to skills required for clinical genomics practice. Drawing on learnings from this pilot implementation, recommendations for refining the program include deepening pedagogical engagement with ethical issues, expanding the offering to trainees across health professions, including pharmacy students, and incorporating an optional experiential learning component. Educational offerings, like PHS, that are designed with the input of genetic counseling expertise may ease pressures on the genetic counseling profession by building a more genomic-literate healthcare workforce that can better support efforts to expand access for patients.

Variations on a Chip: Technologies of Difference in Human Genetics Research.

In this article we examine the history of the production of microarray technologies and their role in constructing and operationalizing views of human genetic difference in contemporary genomics. Rather than the "turn to difference" emerging as a post-Human Genome Project (HGP) phenomenon, interest in individual and group differences was a central, motivating concept in human genetics throughout the twentieth century. This interest was entwined with efforts to develop polymorphic "genetic markers" for studying human traits and diseases. We trace the technological, methodological and conceptual strategies in the late twentieth century that established single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as key focal points for locating difference in the genome. By embedding SNPs in microarrays, researchers created a technology that they used to catalog and assess human genetic variation. In the process of making genetic markers and array-based technologies to track variation, scientists also made commitments to ways of describing, cataloging and "knowing" human genetic differences that refracted difference through a continental geographic lens. We show how difference came to matter in both senses of the term: difference was made salient to, and inscribed on, genetic matter(s), as a result of the decisions, assessments and choices of collaborative and hybrid research collectives in medical genomics research.

Clinicians' perspectives on race-specific guidelines for hypertensive treatment.

Despite the general consensus that there is no biological basis to race, racial categorization is still used by clinicians to guide diagnosis and treatment plans for certain diseases. In medicine, race is commonly used as a rough proxy for unmeasured social, environmental, and genetic factors. The American College of Cardiology's Eighth Joint National Committee's (JNC 8) guidelines for the treatment of hypertension provide race-specific medication recommendations for Black versus non-Black patients, without strong evidence for race-specific physiological differences in drug response. Clinicians practicing family or geriatric medicine (n = 21) were shown a video of a mock hypertensive patient with genetic ancestry test results that could be viewed as discordant with their phenotype and self-identified race. After viewing the videos, we conducted in-depth interviews to examine how clinicians value and prioritize different cues about race -- namely genetic ancestry data, phenotypic appearance, and self-identified racial classifications - when making treatment decisions in the context of race-specific guidelines, particularly in situations when patients claim mixed-race or complex racial identities. Results indicate that clinicians inconsistently follow the race-specific guidelines for patients whose genetic ancestry test results do not match neatly with their self-identified race or phenotypic features. However, many clinicians also emphasized the importance of clinical experience, side effects, and other factors in their decision making. Clinicians' definitions of race, categorization of the patient's race, and prioritization of racial cues greatly varied. The existence of the race-specific guidelines clearly influences treatment decisions, even as clinicians' express uncertainty about how to incorporate consideration of a patient's genetic ancestry. In light of widespread debate about removal of race from medical diagnostics, researchers should revisit the clinical justification for maintaining these race-specific guidelines. Based on our findings and prior studies indicating a lack of convincing evidence for biological differences by race in medication response, we suggest removing race from the JNC 8 guidelines to avoid risk of perpetuating or exacerbating health disparities in hypertension.

Compassion as a tool for allyship and anti-racism.

Racist systems, policies, and institutions subvert the quality of life for minoritized individuals and groups, across all indicators, from education and employment, to health, to community safety. Reforms to address systemic racism may be accelerated with greater support from allies who identify with the dominant groups that derive advantage from such systems. Although enhancing empathy and compassion for impacted individuals and groups may foster greater allyship with and support of minoritized communities, little work to date has assessed the relationships among compassion, empathy, and allyship. After reviewing current work in the area, this perspective offers insights into the utility and specific components of a compassion-based framework that can be used to combat racism, using findings from a survey study in which we investigated the relationship between validated psychometric measures of compassion and allyship with minoritized communities. Several subdomains of compassion, as measured among individuals identifying as non-Black, correlate significantly with levels of felt allyship with Black or African American communities. These findings inform recommendations for compassion-focused research, including development and testing of interventions to promote allyship, advocacy, and solidarity with minoritized groups, and support efforts to undo longstanding structural racisms that have patterned inequality in the United States.