Two Threats to Precision Medicine Equity

Abstract

In January 2015, President Barack Obama unveiled the “Precision Medicine Initiative,” a nationwide research effort to help bring an effective, preventive, and therapeutic approach to medicine. The purpose of the initiative is to bring a precise understanding of the genetic and environmental determi­nants of disease into clinical settings across the United States.1 The announcement was coupled with $216 million provided in the President’s proposed budget for a million-person national research cohort including public and private partnerships with academic medical centers, research­ers, foundations, privacy experts, medical ethicists, and medical product innovators. The Initiative promises to expand the use of precision medicine in cancer research and modernize regulatory approval processes for genome sequencing technologies. In response, Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act in December 2016, authorizing a total of $1.5 billion over 10 years for the program.2 Although the Precision Medicine Initiative heralds great promise for the future of disease treatment and eradication, its implementation and development must be carefully guided to ensure that the millions of federal dollars expended will be spent equitably. This commentary discusses two key threats to the Precision Medicine Initia­tive’s ability to proceed in a manner consis­tent with the United States Constitutional requirement that the federal government shall not “deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.”3 In short, this com­mentary sounds two cautionary notes, in order to advance precision medicine equity. First, achieving precision medicine equity will require scientists and clinicians to fulfill their intellectual, moral, and indeed legal duty to work against abusive uses of preci­sion medicine science to advance distorted views of racial group variation.Precision medicine scientists must decisively denounce and distinguish this Initiative from the pseudo-science of eugenics – the im­moral and deadly pseudo-science that gave racist and nationalist ideologies what Troy Duster called a “halo of legitimacy” during the first half of the 20th century.4 Second, to combat the social threat to precision medicine, scientists must incorporate a comprehensive, ecological understanding of the fundamental social and environ­mental determinants of health outcomes in all research. Only then will the Precision Medicine Initiative live up to its potential to improve and indeed transform health care delivery for all patients, regardless of race, color, or national origin.Ethn Dis: 2019;29(Suppl 3):629-640; doi:10.18865/ed.29.S3.629

Responsible use of polygenic risk scores in the clinic: potential benefits, risks and gaps

“…Widespread and irresponsible use of PRS risks may systematically downplay the role of the environment in an individual's health. Not only would this be inaccurate, but it could potentially offset the work that has been done to highlight social determinants of health and work against interventions that help eliminate health disparities 68 . Ultimately, best practices for PRS delivery will need to be done in close consultation with behavioral and social scientists so that both the social and genetic determinants of health, and their respective interventions, are considered.…”

A call for unity in DEIJ efforts using a proposed framework for Education, Recruitment, Retainment, Research, and Active outreach (ERA) for genetic counselors in the United States

“…Although examples of recent efforts to prioritize and/or fund projects focusing on the inclusion of unrepresented populations exist, such as the NIH All of Us Research Program (All of Us Research Program et al., 2019) and from diagnostic genetic testing laboratories (Ewing, 2021; Hughes et al., 2021), the benefits of genetic testing and precision medicine continue to elude these populations due to the dearth of enrollment (Landry et al., 2018). Genetic research must develop holistic DEIJ‐related policies, acknowledging both genetic and non‐genetic determinants of health outcomes in underserved populations (Map es et al., 2020; Matthew, 2019).…”

Impact of structural racism on inclusion and diversity in precision oncology: A scoping and critical review of the literature

“…Perceived racism was depicted only in the theoretical publications as an additional health stressor that worsened health outcomes for minorities (e.g. allostatic burden) (Geneviève et al, 2020;Matthew, 2019;Zavala et al, 2021). Social stigmatization referred to the idea that the perceived social worth of minorities (e.g.…”