Entity

Time filter

Source Type

North Bethesda, MD, United States

Dougherty M.J.,American Society of Human Genetics | Dougherty M.J.,Aurora University | Wicklund C.,Northwestern University | Johansen Taber K.A.,American Medical Association
Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions | Year: 2016

Despite the growing availability of genomic tools for clinical care, many health care providers experience gaps in genomics knowledge and skills that serve as impediments to widespread and appropriate integration of genomics into routine care. A workshop recently held by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Roundtable on Translating Genomics-Based Research for Health explored 1) the barriers that result in a perception among health care providers that the need for genomics education is not urgent and 2) the drivers that may spur a change in that attitude. This commentary promotes continuing and graduate education-informed by an awareness of barriers, drivers, and best practices-as the most effective approaches for preparing the workforce for genomic medicine and ultimately improving patient care, and argues that the time for education is now. Copyright © 2016 The Alliance for Continuing Education in the Health Professions, the Association for Hospital Medical Education, and the Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education. Source


Botkin J.R.,University of Utah | Belmont J.W.,Baylor College of Medicine | Berg J.S.,University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill | Berkman B.E.,National Human Genome Research Institute | And 9 more authors.
American Journal of Human Genetics | Year: 2015

In 1995, the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) and American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) jointly published a statement on genetic testing in children and adolescents. In the past 20 years, much has changed in the field of genetics, including the development of powerful new technologies, new data from genetic research on children and adolescents, and substantial clinical experience. This statement represents current opinion by the ASHG on the ethical, legal, and social issues concerning genetic testing in children. These recommendations are relevant to families, clinicians, and investigators. After a brief review of the 1995 statement and major changes in genetic technologies in recent years, this statement offers points to consider on a broad range of test technologies and their applications in clinical medicine and research. Recommendations are also made for record and communication issues in this domain and for professional education. © 2015 The American Society of Human Genetics. Source


Crisci J.V.,Museo de La Plata | Katinas L.,Museo de La Plata | McInerney J.D.,American Society of Human Genetics | Apodaca M.J.,Museo de La Plata
Systematic Botany | Year: 2014

A concept map for taking biodiversity to school is proposed here using a novel approach that combines systematics, evolutionary biology, and the nature of science. The concept map is tied to the recently published next generation science standards (NGSS). The problem of biodiversity is presented as a way to justify the need to take it to school. Biological classification is presented as a hypothesis about order in nature that is based on the evolutionary history of the organisms. Classification is the reference system of the entirety of biology with predictive and explanatory power. Homology is the concept that connects systematics to evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology explains and systematics reflects the unity and diversity of life. © Copyright 2014 by the American Society of Plant Taxonomists. Source


Tarini B.A.,University of Michigan | McInerney J.D.,American Society of Human Genetics
Pediatrics | Year: 2013

The family history has been called the first genetic test; it was a core element of primary care long before the current wave of genetics technologies and services became clinically relevant. Risk assessment based on family history allows providers to personalize and prioritize health messages, shifts the focus of health care from treatment to prevention, and can empower individuals and families to be stewards of their own health. In a world of rising health care costs, the family history is an important tool, with its primary cost being the clinician's time. However, a recent National Institutes of Health conference highlighted the lack of substantive evidence to support the clinical utility of family histories. Annual collection of a comprehensive 3-generation family history has been held up as the gold standard for practice. However, interval family histories targeted to symptoms and family histories tailored to a child's life stage (ie, age-based health) may be important and underappreciated methods of collecting family history that yield clinically actionable data and supplement existing family history information. In this article, we review the various applications, as well as capabilities and limitations, of the family history for primary care providers. Pediatrics 2013;132:S203-S210. © 2013 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Source


News Article
Site: http://www.nature.com/nature/current_issue/

In what has been called “gaygenegate” in some corners of the Internet, a conference presentation last week about the genetics of homosexuality in men has come under intense scrutiny. The talk also raised questions about whether scientists working on controversial topics should post unreviewed preprints of their findings before presenting them at a meeting. Statistician Andrew Gelman of Columbia University in New York, who criticized the homosexuality study’s statistical analysis, wrote in a blog post that the lack of a peer-reviewed paper or preprint made it difficult for people to evaluate the work. Other researchers countered that conferences are meant to be forums for early, unpublished work. During a 15-minute talk on 8 October at the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) conference in Baltimore, Maryland, data scientist and geneticist Tuck Ngun of the University of California, Los Angeles, discussed his work on twins that found associations between certain epigenetic changes, or chemical alterations to DNA, and being gay. But the study’s small sample size, statistical methods and conclusions, as well as the conference's press release and the way the news media covered the story, all came under attack. In his blog post, Gelman wrote that there were statistical errors in Ngun’s analysis. He added that he would normally explain this kind of “statistical misunderstanding” as errors that get past peer review in the scientific publication process. “But … in this case there is no paper! No publication, not even a preprint,” he notes. “Preprint allows third parties to verify or comment in a way that’s harder to do here,” Gelman said in an interview. “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with someone giving a talk and not having a preprint, but it is very hard to judge .” Robert Lanfear, a biologist at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, responded to Gelman’s blog post on Twitter: In an e-mail, Lanfear said that conferences are supposed to be a place to talk about early work, but a preprint would be a good idea in cases in which the results are bound to attract a lot of attention. “If pressed, I would say that press releases without at least a preprint are a recipe for disaster.” Other scientists said that asking for preprints at conferences might prevent researchers from presenting in the first place. “Most people don’t pre-publish anything when they’re giving a ten-minute talk,” says Jim Woodgett, a stem-cell researcher at the Lunenfeld–Tanenbaum Research Institute in Toronto, Canada, who also commented on Gelman’s blog post. “You really don’t want to discourage people from talking about work that is maybe not complete.” Still, he added, researchers should be prepared to discuss details of their experiments and statistical analyses after the talk. Otherwise, “You do leave yourself open to significant criticism,” he says. Preprints are routine in the physical sciences but have been a source of continuing debate online among life scientists. Structural biologist Stephen Curry at Imperial College London wrote in a blog post in September that he supports them as a supplement to the long process of peer review. Biologist Michael Eisen of the University of California, Berkeley, went further earlier this month and pledged to abandon pre-publication peer review altogether and post his papers online for public review. Other researchers have also chatted on Twitter about whether preprints are citeable, and whether they establish priority in a competitive field. Ngun issued a rebuttal to the criticism of his work, defending his statistical analysis and saying: “I have always been clear that it is too early to determine the nature of the relationship of the genes to sexual orientation.” In an e-mail, he said that the ASHG conference did not ask for a preprint. “In my experience, preprints are extremely rare in the life sciences. I have not been to a conference that has requested one.” For more, see www.nature.com/socialselection

Discover hidden collaborations