Genomics and the Future
Having just completed my traditional undergraduate education in microbiology/biology, I anticipated undertaking the monotonously strict mathematical and biological rigors involved in studying genetics, genomics and proteomics, similar to the courses offered at my alma mater, The University of Michigan. But after the first day at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health’s 2007 Summer Health Institute, I realized how wrong my presumptions had been.
What made this experience unique was the outstanding opportunity to study a topic, rather an important and emerging field, in great detail. The prospect of attending parts I and II of the Genomics in Public Health series would give me the chance to not only hear lectures from highly respected individuals in their respective fields, but would give me a platform upon which to engage in discussion with others on many of these topics. The exposure to important research topics such as stem cells, nutrigenomics, and pharmicogenomics has since framed my opinion of the future of medicine.
As a prospective future physician, the studies opened my eyes in particular to the wealth of information behind the far-sung rumors of personalized healthcare. I have come to understand that the future of medicine will rely on the ability of doctors to incorporate the insatiable appetite for technology/research to better predict a patient’s response to a particular medicine. Thus, a fast metabolizer of drug X will be given a higher quantity than a slower metabolizer, thereby releasing similar quantities of the drug into the body. The ability of doctors to know the correct dosage and its effects before administering these drugs was always a dream for doctors, but I now understand that the future of this technology is quite bright. It intrigues me to learn about future technologies such as these before they reach the market and gives me a more optimistic future for medicine than is often painted elsewhere in the news.
Another topic that shocked me more than I anticipated was that of stem cell research. Having read several books on the topic as well as being a side interest of mine, I felt as though I understood their position in society to a moderate extent. After hearing several lectures on this topic and seeing preliminary research that was not accepted to journals for being “too advanced and therefore improbable, if not impossible” my views changed. I realized how intertwined the fate of stem cells were tied to the public’s understanding, or lack thereof, and to politicians. It disgusts me to see how tainted science can become so quickly and only emphasized the need for education of the public. Enter Greg Fowler and the Geneforum site. If this site has achieved its goal, it has the ability to reach a group of people hungry for knowledge about genomics. It therefore the responsibility of individuals with knowledge in the field to transmit their experiences and beliefs to this group of people. As we wrote in our letter to SACHGS, we are interested in developing a framework that can effectively reach the target population, i.e. the public.
For me, these courses truly removed the disconnect from bench to bedside, which is spoken of so frequently in the medical field. And, while genomics in public health is currently a hot topic, it is impossible to imagine what discoveries or inventions will come next. However intimidating, it is a frontier that has the possibility to usher a new way of thinking to the world of medicine. With that said, I am excited to continue my education in this field and help contribute my part to the scientific community, whatever that may be. I would like to thank the University of Minnesota School of Public Health for this tremendous opportunity and for the experiences I gained and I hope to participate again next year!