A content analysis of the views of genetics professionals on race, ancestry, and genetics

Conflating race and ancestry: Tracing decision points about population descriptors over the precision medicine research life course

Responding to calls for human genomics to shift away from the use of race, genomic investigators are coalescing around the possibility of using genetic ancestry. This shift has renewed questions about the use of social and genetic concepts of difference in precision medicine research (PMR). Drawing from qualitative data on five PMR projects, we illustrate negotiations within and between research teams as genomic investigators deliberate on the relevance of race and genetic ancestry for different analyses and contexts. We highlight how concepts of both social and genetic difference are embedded within and travel through research practices, and identify multiple points across the research life course at which conceptual slippage and conflation between race and genetic ancestry occur. We argue that moving beyond race will require PMR investigators to confront the entrenched ways in which race is built into research practices and biomedical infrastructures.

Science, Society, and Dismantling Racism

As a foundational pillar of the Truth, Racial Healing & Transformation framework, Narrative Change involves reckoning with our historical and current realities regarding "race" and racism, uprooting dominant narratives that normalize injustice and sustain oppression, and advancing narratives that promote equity and collective liberation. Narrative Change is vital to creating communal recognition and appreciation of the interconnectedness and equality of all humans and dismantling the ideology and structures of racial hierarchy. Telling new or more truthful and complete stories must include improving our understanding and messaging about what race is and what it is not as well as the relationship between race and racism. Ideas about the existence of biological human races have long been discredited by scientists and scholars in various fields. Yet, false beliefs about natural and fixed biological differences within the human species persist in some scientific studies, in aspects of health care, and in the political and legal architectures of the United States and other countries, thereby reproducing and maintaining social hierarchies. Efforts to eradicate racism and its pernicious effects are limited in their potential for sustained positive transformation unless simultaneous endeavors are undertaken to reframe people's thinking about the very concept of race. This brief provides an overview of the origins of racial hierarchy, distinguishes between biological concepts of race and socially defined race, reviews perspectives on the meanings and uses of race, and describes ongoing and potential efforts to address prevailing misunderstandings about race and racism.

Clinical genetic counseling and translation considerations for polygenic scores in personalized risk assessments: A Practice Resource from the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Polygenic scores (PGS) are primed for use in personalized risk assessments for common, complex conditions and population health screening. Although there is growing evidence supporting the clinical validity of these scores in certain diseases, presently, there is no consensus on best practices for constructing PGS or demonstrated clinical utility in practice. Despite these evidence gaps, individuals can access their PGS information through commercial entities, research programs, and clinical programs. This prompts the immediate need for educational resources for clinicians encountering PGS information in clinical practice. This practice resource is intended to increase genetic counselors' and other healthcare providers' understanding and comfort with PGS used in personalized risk assessments. Drawing on best practices in clinical genomics, we discuss the unique considerations for polygenic-based (1) testing, (2) clinical genetic counseling, and (3) translation to population health services. This practice resource outlines the emerging uses of PGS, as well as the critical limitations of this technology that need to be addressed before wide-scale implementation.

North American genetic counselors' approach to collecting and using ancestry in clinical practice

Current guidelines from the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) recommend that patients' ancestry be obtained when taking a family history. However, no study has explored how consistently genetic counselors obtain or utilize this information. The goals of this study included assessing how genetic counselors collect their patients' ancestry, what factors influence this decision, and how they view the utility of this information. Genetic counselors working in a direct patient care setting in the US or Canada were recruited to participate in an anonymous survey via an NSGC email blast. Most participants (n = 115) obtain information about their patients' ancestry (96.5%), with the most common methods being directly asking the patient (91%) and utilizing intake forms (43.2%). Of participants who ask about ancestry directly, 50.5% always ask about the presence of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry and 70.3% always ask about additional ancestries, suggesting that for most genetic counselors' collection of ancestry is standard practice. However, the clinical utility of ancestry information is highly variable, with the impact on genetic testing choice being particularly low. A slight majority of participants support a reevaluation of current ancestry guidelines (51.3%), with many participants suggesting that the varying utility of ancestry in different clinical indications/specialties should be incorporated into guidelines. Despite being standard practice for most genetic counselors, no unified approach or standard for how ancestral information should be used in genetic counseling practice was identified.

Recommendations on the use and reporting of race, ethnicity, and ancestry in genetic research: Experiences from the NHLBI TOPMed program

How race, ethnicity, and ancestry are used in genomic research has wide-ranging implications for how research is translated into clinical care and incorporated into public understanding. Correlation between race and genetic ancestry contributes to unresolved complexity for the scientific community, as illustrated by heterogeneous definitions and applications of these variables. Here, we offer commentary and recommendations on the use of race, ethnicity, and ancestry across the arc of genetic research, including data harmonization, analysis, and reporting. While informed by our experiences as researchers affiliated with the NHLBI Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) program, these recommendations are applicable to basic and translational genomic research in diverse populations with genome-wide data. Moving forward, considerable collaborative effort will be required to ensure that race, ethnicity, and ancestry are described and used appropriately to generate scientific knowledge that yields broad and equitable benefit.

Diversity, Profit, Control: An Empirical Study of Industry Employees' Views on Ethics in Private Sector Genomics

BACKGROUND

Large amounts of capital are currently being invested in genomics companies across the "bench to clinic pipeline" - companies which are now shaping the future of biomedicine globally. Understanding the perspectives of people who work in such companies can contribute to shaping this industry in service of just and equitable futures of medicine.

METHODS

Using in-depth interviews as the primary method, this paper analyzes perspectives on ethical and social issues in private sector genomics expressed by members of the commercial genomics industry in the US.

RESULTS

Interviewees described a wide range of issues as pressing ethical concerns in commercial genomics. Key themes included concerns about diversity in genetic datasets, data governance and control, and pricing and profits in the industry. However, concern about diversity of datasets was not accompanied by expressions of concern about diversity in the industry workforce.

CONCLUSIONS

Most interviewees described concerns in the industry that are rather removed from their own work. But along with this "ethical distancing," moral concerns appeared to be the basis for competition amongst companies - to attract both employees and customers. Research in business ethics suggests that expanding moral analysis of one's own work helps improve day to day decision-making in the interest of justice. Opening space for people to examine ethics in their own subsector may provide a means for the private sector genomics industry to become a leader in ethics in the biosciences and a model for equity in our current moment of late capitalism.

Considerations of Racism and Data Equity Among Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, And Pacific Islanders in the Context of COVID-19

Purpose of Review

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the importance of considering social determinants of health, including factors such as structural racism. This review discusses some of the evidence that triangulates on this issue, including data from hate crime statistics, social media analysis, and survey-based research. It also examines the data needs for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (NHPI) communities.

Recent Findings

The available data provides evidence that the pandemic has contributed to an increase in anti-Asian sentiment and discriminatory incidents. Many reports have surfaced showing a surge in anti-Chinese discrimination, which has "spilled over" into other Asian communities. Research is beginning to emerge to show that such discrimination may also impact health issues such as psychological distress. Given prior research, we would expect many more studies to emerge in the future. Also, the pandemic has illustrated the major gaps in data available to disentangle the health and social concerns facing Asian Americans and NHPI communities. Significant issues include the lack of systematic reporting of data for these communities both across states, and even among agencies within a state; erroneous aggregation of Asians with NHPIs; and censoring of data. These gaps and issues contribute to bias that obscures objective data and amplifies health inequalities.

Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on the well-being of Asian American and NHPI communities. It is critical to provide disaggregated data, not only so that we can have accurate reporting, but also to ensure data and health equity.

Confronting Racism in Environmental Health Sciences: Moving the Science Forward for Eliminating Racial Inequities

BACKGROUND

The twin pandemics of COVID-19 and systemic racism during 2020 have forced a conversation across many segments of our society, including the environmental health sciences (EHS) research community. We have seen the proliferation of statements of solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement and commitments to fight racism and health inequities from academia, nonprofit organizations, governmental agencies, and private corporations. Actions must now arise from these promises. As public health and EHS scientists, we must examine the systems that produce and perpetuate inequities in exposure to environmental pollutants and associated health effects.

OBJECTIVES

We outline five recommendations the EHS research community can implement to confront racism and move our science forward for eliminating racial inequities in environmental health.

DISCUSSION

Race is best considered a political label that promotes inequality. Thus, we should be wary of equating race with biology. Further, EHS researchers should seriously consider racism as a plausible explanation of racial disparities in health and consider structural racism as a factor in environmental health risk/impact assessments, as well as multiple explanations for racial differences in environmental exposures and health outcomes. Last, the EHS research community should develop metrics to measure racism and a set of guidelines on the use and interpretation of race and ethnicity within the environmental sciences. Numerous guidelines exist in other disciplines that can serve as models. By taking action on each of these recommendations, we can make significant progress toward eliminating racial disparities. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP8186.

Language use in ancestry research and estimation

Recent discussions have revolved around the concept of ancestry and ancestry estimation; however, the associated terminology and its theoretical underpinnings have not been similarly examined. This research evaluates the concepts (e.g., race, ancestry, ethnicity) currently in use, examines if they are consistent with the groups employed to illustrate them (e.g., Black, European, Hispanic), and looks for patterns in language usage. Articles in the Anthropology, Odontology, and General sections of the Journal of Forensic Sciences between 2009 and 2019 were evaluated for ancestry-related language use. For each article, the concepts, examples, and bibliographic information were recorded, and the relationship between concept and example was examined. These data were cross-tabulated to evaluate relationships between the variables. Cramer's V was used to assess the strength of association of these relationships. In this sample, ancestry predominates, especially recently The concept used is significantly associated with all variables except publication date and authors' institution(s). Despite the prevalence of the ancestry concept, racially based terms for individual groups were common. The use of ancestry, over race, in forensic contexts has been suggested to be a primarily linguistic change; these results may support that assertion. Inconsistent language usage leads to a lack of clarity in meaning among researchers and misinterpretation of the data. It is critical to recognize that inconsistencies exist, but also to understand why they exist. These results underscore the long overdue need for the inclusion of diverse perspectives in forensic anthropology, especially in the current conversations surrounding ancestry and ancestry estimation.

Impacts of personal DNA ancestry testing

Consumer uptake of direct-to-consumer (DTC) DNA ancestry testing is accelerating, yet few empirical studies have examined test impacts on recipients despite the DTC ancestry industry being two decades old. Participants in a longitudinal cohort study of response to health-related DTC genomic testing also received personal DNA ancestry testing at no additional cost. Baseline survey data from the primary study were analyzed together with responses to an additional follow-up survey focused on the response to ancestry results. Ancestry results were generated for 3466 individuals. Of those, 1317 accessed their results, and 322 individuals completed an ancestry response survey, in other words, approximately one in ten who received ancestry testing responded to the survey. Self-reported race/ethnicity was predictive of those most likely to view their results. While 46% of survey responders (N = 147) reported their ancestry results as surprising or unexpected, less than 1% (N = 3) were distressed by them. Importantly, however, 21% (N = 67) reported that their results reshaped their personal identity. Most (81%; N = 260) planned to share results with family, and 12% (N = 39) intended to share results with a healthcare provider. Many (61%; N = 196) reported test benefits (e.g., health insights), while 12% (N = 38) reported negative aspects (e.g., lack of utility). Over half (N = 162) reported being more likely to have other genetic tests in the future. DNA ancestry testing affected individuals with respect to personal identity, intentions to share genetic information with family and healthcare providers, and the likelihood to engage with other genetic tests in the future. These findings have implications for medical care and research, specifically, provider readiness to engage with genetic ancestry information.

Clinical Genetics Lacks Standard Definitions and Protocols for the Collection and Use of Diversity Measures

Genetics researchers and clinical professionals rely on diversity measures such as race, ethnicity, and ancestry (REA) to stratify study participants and patients for a variety of applications in research and precision medicine. However, there are no comprehensive, widely accepted standards or guidelines for collecting and using such data in clinical genetics practice. Two NIH-funded research consortia, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) and Clinical Sequencing Evidence-generating Research (CSER), have partnered to address this issue and report how REA are currently collected, conceptualized, and used. Surveying clinical genetics professionals and researchers (n = 448), we found heterogeneity in the way REA are perceived, defined, and measured, with variation in the perceived importance of REA in both clinical and research settings. The majority of respondents (>55%) felt that REA are at least somewhat important for clinical variant interpretation, ordering genetic tests, and communicating results to patients. However, there was no consensus on the relevance of REA, including how each of these measures should be used in different scenarios and what information they can convey in the context of human genetics. A lack of common definitions and applications of REA across the precision medicine pipeline may contribute to inconsistencies in data collection, missing or inaccurate classifications, and misleading or inconclusive results. Thus, our findings support the need for standardization and harmonization of REA data collection and use in clinical genetics and precision health research.