Skip to main content

Public Health Genomics (PHG): From Scientific Considerations to Ethical Integration


Recent advances in our understanding of the human genome have raised high hopes for the creation of personalized medicine able to predict diseases well before they occur, or that will lead to individualized and therefore more effective treatments. This possibility of a more accurate science of the prevention and surveillance of disease also illuminates the field of public health, where the translation of genomic knowledge could provide tools enhancing the capacity of public health authorities to promote health and prevent diseases. But beyond scientific considerations, the use of genomics in public health research and interventions gives rise to several ethical and social issues of great importance. Considering the impact that PHG could have on the future of public health while still paying attention to the uncertainty surrounding the use of genomic databases for the benefit of populations, this article seeks to explore the promise of genomics in public health and the ethical issues that emerge from its application.


  1. 1

    The authors are at Programmes de bioéthique, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada. Correspondence to

  2. 2

    J. Bell. Predicting disease using genomics. Nature 2004; 429: 453–56.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    W. Kalow. Pharmacogenetics and personalized medicine. Fundamental and Clinical Pharmacology 2002; 16: 337–42.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    W.E. Evans and M.V. Relling. Moving towards individualized medicine with pharmacogenomics. Nature 2004; 429: 464–68.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    M. Gwinn and M.J. Khoury. Research Priorities for Public Health Sciences in the Postgenomic Era. Genetics in Medicine 2002; 4 (6): 410–11.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    H. Colhoun et al. Problems of reporting genetic associations with complex outcomes. Lancet 2003; 361: 865–72.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    G. Davey Smith et al. Genetic epidemiology and public health: hope, hype and future prospects. Lancet 2005; 366: 1484–98.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    M.J. Khoury et al. (eds.) 2000. Genetics and public health in the 21st century: Using genetic information to improve health and prevent disease. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    A. Brand et al. Getting ready for the future: integration of genomics into public health research, policy and practice in Europe and globally. Community Genetics 2006; 9: 67–71.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    D. Alexander et al. A vision of the future of newborn screening. Pediatrics 2006; 117: 350–4.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    N.A. Holtzman. What role for public health in genetics and vice versa?. Community Genetics 2006; 9: 8–20.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    K. Ries Merikangas and N. Risch. Genomic Priorities and Public Health. Science 2003; 302: 599–601.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    K. Freeman. Harnessing the HGP for public health. Environmental Health Perspectives 2004; 112 (7): 403.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    K. Gunderson et al. A genome-wide scalable SNP genotyping assay using microarray technology. Nature Genetics 2005; 37: 549–554.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    S. Shostak. Locating gene-environment interaction: at the intersection of genetics and public health. Social Science & Medicine 2003; 56: 2327–2342.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    J. Dausset. Les bases de la médecine prédictive. ADSP (Haut comité de la santé publique) 2001; 37: 66–67.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    E. Kunstmann and J.T. Epplen. Genetic counseling for the public? Community Genetics 2006; 9: 62–66.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    J. Ziebuhr. Molecular Biology of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus. Current Opinion in Microbiology. August 2004; 7 (4): 412–9.

  19. 19

    R.E. Johnston. A Candidate Vaccine for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. The New England Journal of Medicine 2004; 351 (8): 827–8.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    R. Freeman et al. Use of rapid genomic deletion typing to monitor a tuberculosis outbreak within an urban homeless population. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2005; 43 (11): 5550–54.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    A.J. Frodsham and A.V.S. Hill. Genetics of infectious diseases. Human Molecular Genetics 2004; 13 (2): 187–94.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Davey Smith, op. cit. note 7.

  23. 23

    M.J. Khoury et al. The emergence of epidemiology in the genomics age. International Journal of Epidemiology 2004; 33: 936–44.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    K.J. Maschke. Navigating an ethical patchwork — human gene banks. Nature Biotechnology 2005; 23 (5): 539–45.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    J. Kaiser. Biobanks. Population databases boom from Iceland to the U.S. Science 2002; 298 (5596): 1158–61.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Gwinn & Khoury, op. cit. note 5.

  27. 27

    M.J. Khoury et al. Population Screening in the Age of Genomic Medicine. New England Journal of Medicine 2003; 348 (1): 50–58.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    M. Müller et al. Nutrigenomics: goals and strategies. Nature Reviews Genetics 2003; 4: 315–22.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Y.H. Hsieh et al. Real-time forecast of multiphase outbreak. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2006; 12 (1): 122–7.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    E. Mykhaloskiy et al. The Global Public Health Intelligence Network and early warning outbreak detection: a canadian contribution to global public health. Canadian Journal of Public Health 2006; 97 (1): 42–4.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    M. Gwinn and M.J. Koury. Genomics and Public Health in the United States: Signposts on the Translation Highway. Community Genetics 2006; 9: 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32


  33. 33

    K.Y. Yoo et al. Genomic epidemiology cohorts in Korea: present and the future. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 2005; 6 (3): 238–43.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    M.J. Khoury. The case for a global human genome epidemiology initiative. Nature Genetics. 2004; 36 (10): 1027–28.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    H.E. Wichmann et al. KORA-gen. Resources for population genetics. Controls and a broad spectrum of disease phenotypes. Gesundheitswesen 2005; 67 (1): 26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Khoury, op. cit. note 34.

  37. 37

    Wichmann et al, op. cit. note 35.

  38. 38

    A.S. Noonan. Integrating genomics into US public health. Genetics in Medicine 2002; 4 (6): 68S–71S.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39

    B.H. Robertson et al. New microbiology tools for public health and their implications. Annual Review of Public Health 2005; 26: 281–302.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Human Genome Epidemiology Network (accessed 31 August. 2006)

  41. 41

    Gwinn & Khoury, op. cit. note 31.

  42. 42

    R. Chadwick et al. Solidarity and equity: new ethical frameworks for genetic databases. Nature Reviews Genetics 2001; 2 (4): 318–321.

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43

    F.S. Collins. The case for a US prospective cohort study of genes and environment. Nature 2004; 429: 475–77.

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44

    I. Rabino. Genetic Testing and Its Implications: Human Genetics Researchers Grapple with Ethical Issues. Science, Technology & Human Values 2003; 28 (3): 365–402.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45

    Shostak, op. cit. note 15.

  46. 46

    W. van den Daele. The spectre of coercion: is public health genetics the route to policies of enforced disease prevention? Community Genetics 2006; 9: 40–49.

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47

    M.H.V. Van Regenmortel. Reductionism and complexity in human molecular biology. Embo Report. 2004; 5 (1): 1016–1020.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48

    T.H. Murray. 2000. Genetic Exceptionalism and ‘Future Diaries’: Is Genetic Information Different from Other Medical Information?, in Genetic Secrets: Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the Genetic Era. M.A. Rothstein, ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49

    J. Hodge. Ethical Issues Concerning Genetic Testing and Screening in Public Health. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C 2004; 125C: 66–70.

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50

    F.S. Collins et al. Heredity and Humanity: Have no fear. Genes aren’t everything. The New Republican 2001; June 25: 27–29.

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51

    Murray, op. cit. note 48.

  52. 52

    A.W. Toga and P.M. Thomson. Genetics of brain structure and intelligence. Annual Review of Neuroscience 2005; 28: 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53

    A. Cambon-Thomsen et al. Populational Genetic Databases: Is a Specific Ethical and Legal Framework Necessary? GenEdit 2005; 3 (1): 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54

    UNESCO. 2003. International Declaration on Human Genetic Data. Paris. October 16.

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55

    UNESCO. 1997. Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. Paris. November 11.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56

    H. Thortsteindottir et al. Genomics. a global public good? Lancet 2003; 361 (9361): 891–92.

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57

    B.M. Knoppers. Of Genomics and Public Health: Building Public Goods? CMAJ 2005; 173 (10): 1185–86.

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58

    T. Caufield et al. DNA databases and consent: a suggested policy option involving an authorization model. BMC Medical Ethics 2003; 4 (1): 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59

    B.M. Knoppers. Consent revisited: points to consider. Health Law Review 2005; 13 (2-3): 33–38.

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60


  61. 61

    V. Arnason. Coding and consent: moral challenges of the database project in Iceland. Bioethics 2004; 18 (1): 27–49.

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62

    B.S. Elger et al. Consent and anonymization in research involving biobanks: differing terms and norms present serious barriers to an international framework. EMBO reports 2006; 7 (7): 661–6.

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63

    B.M. Knoppers et al. The Babel of genetic data terminology. Nature Biotechnology 2005; 23 (8): 925–7.

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64

    Cambon-Thomsen, op. cit. note 53.

  65. 65

    E.W. Clayton. Ethical. legal and social implications of genomic medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine 2003; 349: 562–9.

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66

    Y. Joly et al. Genetic information and life insurance: a ‘real’ risk?. European Journal of Human Genetics 2003; 11 (8): 561–4.

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67

    M.A. Rothstein. What is genetic discrimination and when and how can it be prevented? Genetics in Medicine 2001; 3 (5): 354–8.

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68

    R. Bayer et al. The Genesis of Public Health Ethics. Bioethics 2004; 18 (6): 473–492.

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69

    J.F. Childress et al. Public Health Ethics: Mapping The Terrain. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2002; 30 (2): 171–8.

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70

    D. Callahan et al. Ethics and Public Health: Forging a Strong Relationship. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92 (2): 169–76.

    Google Scholar 

  71. 71

    A. Harris et al. The Exercise of Public Health Powers in an Era of Human Rights: the Particular Problems of Tuberculosis. Journal of the Royal Institute of Public Health 2004; 118: 313–22.

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72

    van den Daele, op. cit. note 46.

  73. 73

    O. O’Neill. Public Health or Clinical Ethics: Thinking Beyond Borders. Ethics and International Affairs. 2004; 16 (2): 35–45.

    Google Scholar 

  74. 74

    Bayer, op. cit. note 68.

  75. 75

    R. Andorno. The Precautionary Principle: A New Legal Standard For a Technological Age. Journal of International Biotechnology Law. 2004; 1: 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  76. 76

    “The only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others.” — John Stuart Mill. On liberty.

  77. 77

    Bayer, op. cit. note 68.

  78. 78

    R. Massé. 2003. Éthique et santé publique. Enjeux, valeurs et normativité. Québec. Presses de l’Université Laval.

    Google Scholar 

  79. 79

    I. Kaul, I. Grunberg, and M.A. Stern, eds. 1999. Global Public Goods. New York, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80

    R. Chadwick. Nutrigenomics, individualism and public health. Proceedings of Nutrition Society 2004; 63: 161–66.

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81

    HUGO. 2002. HUGO Ethics Committee Statement on Genomic Databases. London. December.

    Google Scholar 

  82. 82

    R. Chadwick and S. Wilson. Genomic databases as global public goods?. Res Publica 2004; 10 (2): 123–34.

    Google Scholar 

  83. 83

    Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). Medical Research Council of Canada (MRC). Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). 1998. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Ottawa.

    Google Scholar 

  84. 84

    B. Godard et al. Data storage and DNA banking for biomedical research: informed consent, confidentiality, quality issues, ownership, return of benefits. A professional perspective. European Journal of Human Genetics 2003; December 11. S2: S82–S122.

    Google Scholar 

  85. 85

    J. Tansey et al. 2004. The foundations, applications and ethical dimensions of biobanks. Electronic Working Papers Series. W. Maurice Young Center for Applied Ethics. University of British Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86

    Brand et al, op. cit. note 9.

  87. 87

    Human Genome Epidemiology Network, op. cit. note 40.

  88. 88

    The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). 2005. Science, society and public policy: dilemmas of public participation. Royal Society. London. 25 June. (accessed 2 August. 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  89. 89

    A. Thibault et al. 2000. Cadre de référence de la participation publique (démocratique. utile et crédible). Conseil de la santé et du bien-être. Quebec.

    Google Scholar 

  90. 90

    L. Turnbull et al. 2006. Fostering Canadians’ Role in Public Policy: A Strategy for Institutionalizing Public Involvement in Policy. Canadian Policy Research Networks. Ottawa. (accessed 2 August. 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  91. 91

    J. Chopyak et al. Public participation in science and technology decision making: trends for the future. Technology in Society. 2002; 24: 155–66.

    Google Scholar 

  92. 92

    M.M. Burgess. Public Consultation in Ethics. An Experiment in Representative Ethics. Journal of bioethical inquiry. 2003; 1 (1): 4–13.

    Google Scholar 

  93. 93

    Abelson, J. et al. Will it make a difference if a show up and share? A citizens perspective on improving public involvement processes for health system decision-making. Journal of Health Services. Research & Policy. 2004; 9 (4): 205–12.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Béatrice Godard.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Farmer, Y., Godard, B. Public Health Genomics (PHG): From Scientific Considerations to Ethical Integration. Life Sci Soc Policy 3, 14 (2007).

Download citation


  • Genomic Research
  • Precautionary Principle
  • Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
  • Public Health Authority
  • Global Public Good