Genetic essentialism: The mediating role of essentialist biases on the relationship between genetic knowledge and the interpretations of genetic information

Impact of Receiving Genetic Diagnoses on Parents' Perceptions of Their Children with Autism and Intellectual Disability

To assess whether genetic test results identifying the cause of a child's autism, when accompanied by other neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD), including intellectual disability, alter how parents perceive and treat their child. 28 parents of 22 individuals with autism (mean age: 15 years), usually with other NDDs, were interviewed after receiving genetic diagnoses indicating a de novo mutation through the Simons Foundation Powering Autism Research for Knowledge study. Diagnosis of a de novo genetic variant can alter parental perceptions of offspring with autism and other NDDs. Parents often blamed their child less, saw their child as less in control of symptoms, and developed more patience, framing expectations accordingly. Parents had mixed feelings about receiving genetic diagnoses, with sadness sometimes accompanying reframed expectations. Genetic diagnoses could change views of the child among extended family members, teachers, social service agencies, insurers, and broader communities and society. Genetic testing might also reduce delays in diagnoses of autism among African American, Latino and other children. These data, the first to examine several critical aspects of how parents and others view children with autism and other NDDs after receiving genetic diagnoses, highlight vital needs for education of multiple stakeholders (including geneticists, other physicians, genetic counselors, parents, individuals with autism, social service agencies, insurers, policymakers, and the broader public), research (to include perspectives of extended family members, insurers, social service agencies and teachers) and practice (to increase recognition and awareness of the potential benefits and effects of genetic testing for such children).

The undue influence of genetic information on senior medical students' treatment decisions

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of the genetic basis of health conditions can influence how the public perceives their own and others' health. When there are known genetic associations for such conditions, genetic essentialist biases facilitate deterministic thinking and an over-emphasis of genetic causality. This study investigates the role that genetic essentialist biases play in medical decision-making.

METHODS

Senior postgraduate medical students (N = 102) read a scenario in which a patient presents with gastroenterological symptoms. Half of the students were told that the patient tested positive for HLADQ2 - a gene implicated in, but not deterministic of, coeliac disease. The other half received no genetic information. Students were assessed on their recommendations for investigation and management using a multiple-choice questionnaire. Twenty-two of these students participated in a qualitative follow-up which used focus groups and semi-structured interviews to explore the reasoning behind students' responses.

RESULTS

Management recommendations differed between the two groups, with those receiving genetic information more likely to recommend a gluten free diet. Recommendations for further investigation did not differ significantly between groups. Interviews suggested that these findings arose despite the students' good understanding of the common non-deterministic nature of genes, such as HLADQ2.

CONCLUSION

Differences in management recommendations suggest that the inclusion of genetic information unduly biased students towards a premature diagnosis of a serious health condition, coeliac disease. Follow-up interviews introduced the possibility that observed manipulation-based differences may have been based on anticipated expectations of examiners, rather than perceived future clinical practice. Based on the present results it is unclear whether intentional exam-taking strategies fully account for medical students' decisions, or if they contribute in addition to the activation of genetic essentialist biases. Further research in clinical settings may ascertain whether genetic essentialist biases would truly influence medical student and doctors within their clinical practice environment.

Reductionist methodology and the ambiguity of the categories of race and ethnicity in biomedical research: an exploratory study of recent evidence

In this article, we analyse how researchers use the categories of race and ethnicity with reference to genetics and genomics. We show that there is still considerable conceptual "messiness" (despite the wide-ranging and popular debate on the subject) when it comes to the use of ethnoracial categories in genetics and genomics that among other things makes it difficult to properly compare and interpret research using ethnoracial categories, as well as draw conclusions from them. Finally, we briefly reconstruct some of the biases of reductionism to which geneticists (as well as other researchers referring to genetic methods and explanations) are particularly exposed to, and we analyse the problem in the context of the biologization of ethnoracial categories. Our work constitutes a novel, in-depth contribution to the debate about reporting race and ethnicity in biomedical and health research. First, we reconstruct the theoretical background assumptions about racial ontology which researchers implicitly presume in their studies with the aid of a sample of recent papers published in medical journals about COVID-19. Secondly, we use the typology of the biases of reductionism to the problem of biologization of ethnoracial categories with reference to genetics and genomics.

The dubious precision and utility of heritability estimates

Uchiyama et al. question heritability estimates in a convincing manner. We offer additional arguments to further bolster their claims, highlighting methodological issues in heritability coefficients' derivation, their misuse in various contexts, and their potential contributions to exacerbating common erroneous intuitions that have been shown to lead to deleterious social phenomena. We conclude that science should move away from using them.

LGBTQ+ Perspectives on Conducting Genomic Research on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with LGBTQ+-identified individuals (n = 31) to explore the range of LGBTQ+ perspectives on genomic research using either sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI) data. Most interviewees presumed that research would confirm genetic contributions to sexual orientation and gender identity. Primary hopes for such confirmation included validating LGBTQ+ identities, improved access to and quality of healthcare and other resources, and increased acceptance in familial, socio-cultural, and political environments. Areas of concern included threats of pathologizing and medicalizing LGBTQ+ identities and experiences, undermining reproductive rights, gatekeeping of health or social systems, and malicious testing or misuse of genetic results, particularly for LGBTQ+ youth. Overall, interviewees were divided on the acceptability of genomic research investigating genetic contributions to sexual orientation and gender identity. Participants emphasized researchers' ethical obligations to LGBTQ+ individuals and endorsed engagement with LGBTQ+ communities throughout all aspects of genomic research using SOGI data.

Interactive Beliefs about Genes and Behavior Predict Improved Sun Protection Following Melanoma Genetic Counseling

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how members of cancer-prone families think about genetic determinism and whether personal behavior can amplify or counter genetic risk for disease.

PURPOSE

Understanding how people think about the impact of personal behavior on disease risk may inform communications about genetic risks and their management.

METHODS

We assessed three sets of beliefs about the impact of behavior on genetic risk-interactive (unhealthful behaviors can amplify genetic risk), subtractive (healthful behaviors can reduce genetic risk), and deterministic (genes primarily determine health outcomes)-among 114 unaffected members of melanoma-prone families receiving genetic counseling (51.6% men, average age = 35.3). We examined whether these beliefs predicted changes in perceived control, motivation to manage melanoma risk, and sun-protection behavior one year later.

RESULTS

Participants strongly endorsed interactive and subtractive beliefs, but not deterministic beliefs. These beliefs generally did not change, even among those who received positive CDKN2A/p16 genetic test results conferring up to 76% lifetime melanoma risk. Controlling for age, sex, education, skin type, and genetic test result, interactive beliefs predicted sustained increases in perceptions of personal control, motivation to reduce sun exposure, use of multiple sun-protection methods, and reduction in objectively assessed tanning at the wrist one year following genetic counseling. Subtractive beliefs predicted increased personal control, motivation to manage risk, and sunscreen use, while deterministic beliefs were generally unrelated to outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Among people at highly elevated hereditary cancer risk, beliefs that unhealthful behaviors can amplify genetic risk seem to be especially motivating of behavioral risk-reduction efforts.