Clinical Genetics/Genomics Needs Behavioral Sciences.
The field of behavioral medicine has long used knowledge about human behavior to help address a range of health issues, from obesity to HIV. It also stands to unlock the full population health potential of clinical genetics and genomics—but only if there is a concerted effort to integrate the two fields, according to a new editorial co-authored by a School of Public Health researcher.
“Research in areas such as decision making, health behavior change, communication science, social and health inequities, and implementation science has much to contribute and stands to elevate the visibility and impact of genetic discoveries,” wrote Catharine Wang, associate professor of community health sciences, and other members of a Society of Behavioral Medicine working group in their American Journal of Human Genetics editorial.
“There has never been a better time to promote such integration,” they wrote, pointing to the growing and ever-evolving communication, decision-making, and implementation challenges posed by genetic and genomic developments. “Tackling these questions is essential if genomics-informed innovation is to have public health impact, particularly given that population-level genetic screening can be perceived as competing with other essential public-health priorities.”
The Society of Behavioral Medicine gave the working group the task of considering how to better integrate the two fields. To do so, they analyzed existing research on behavioral health and its integration with other fields, including clinical genetics and genomics. They also conducted focus groups, and engaged behavioral medicine’s established leaders and rising junior scientists alike.
The resulting recommendation outlined six specific steps to overcome the barriers that currently stand between behavioral medicine and clinical genetics/genomics.
First, the authors called for longer-term collaboration opportunities between behavioral medicine researchers and genomic scientists—as well as public health practitioners. “The seeds for these collaborations might be sown through development of conferences and workshops supported by professional organizations such as the American Society of of Human Genetics and the Society of Behavioral Medicine,” they wrote.
Next, they recommended these and other organizations and institutions in the two fields co-sponsor symposia and other conference events. Third, they called for incentives for collaboration, to help strong interdisciplinary teams form.
Fourth, they wrote, “consider and highlight special sections, special series, invited articles, and other publication venues that illustrate the value of the type of interdisciplinary research for which we advocate.” These publications, they wrote, will also require peer reviewers who are well-versed in both disciplines.
Finally, they recommended applying one discipline within behavioral science to the endeavor itself: “the science of team science” could optimize how these interdisciplinary teams work together and maximize their output.
The article was co-authored by William Klein of the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute; Colleen McBride and Caitlin Allen at Emory University Rollins School of Public Health; Elva Arredondo of San Diego State University School of Public Health; Cinnamon Bloss of the University of California San Diego; Kimberly Kaphingst of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; and Amy Sturm of the Genomic Medicine Institute.