What Role for Public Health in Genetics and Vice Versa?

UNLABELLED: Some epidemiologists and geneticists claim that integrating genetics into public health policies and programs is necessary and unavoidable. OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent to which further integration of public health and genetics is warranted. METHODS: Synthesis of the literature in four areas: research, genetic services, regulation, and education. The analysis is limited to human genetics. RESULTS: Public support for basic genetic research has and will continue to lead to new applications and to further understanding of human origins and dispersions. Some applied research, particularly for genetic risk factors for common complex diseases, has low yield and is better supported by private funds. The only genetic service for which a public health role is paramount is newborn screening. With the patenting of genes, and the proliferation of commercial interests in genetic tests and directly advertising them to the public, regulation by public health agencies is increasingly important. As most genetic testing and other services will be provided in the personal health care system, education about genetics is best left to the educational and medical systems. Public health practitioners should be aware of the limitations of genetic tests. CONCLUSIONS: There is little need for further integration of genetic services and education into public health especially in countries in which public and private health services are dichotomized. Newborn screening and follow-up, however, are most safely and effectively provided under public health auspices. The most important area for strengthening the public health role is in the regulation of genetic tests and other genetic services provided primarily by the private sector. Continued support for basic genetic research is needed.