Title |
Informed decision-making among students analyzing their personal genomes on a whole genome sequencing course: a longitudinal cohort study
|
---|---|
Published in |
Genome Medicine, December 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/gm518 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Saskia C Sanderson, Michael D Linderman, Andrew Kasarskis, Ali Bashir, George A Diaz, Milind C Mahajan, Hardik Shah, Melissa Wasserstein, Randi E Zinberg, Micol Zweig, Eric E Schadt |
Abstract |
Multiple laboratories now offer clinical whole genome sequencing (WGS). We anticipate WGS becoming routinely used in research and clinical practice. Many institutions are exploring how best to educate geneticists and other professionals about WGS. Providing students in WGS courses with the option to analyze their own genome sequence is one strategy that might enhance students' engagement and motivation to learn about personal genomics. However, if this option is presented to students, it is vital they make informed decisions, do not feel pressured into analyzing their own genomes by their course directors or peers, and feel free to analyze a third-party genome if they prefer. We therefore developed a 26-hour introductory genomics course in part to help students make informed decisions about whether to receive personal WGS data in a subsequent advanced genomics course. In the advanced course, they had the option to receive their own personal genome data, or an anonymous genome, at no financial cost to them. Our primary aims were to examine whether students made informed decisions regarding analyzing their personal genomes, and whether there was evidence that the introductory course enabled the students to make a more informed decision. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 25 | 37% |
United Kingdom | 10 | 15% |
Canada | 5 | 7% |
France | 5 | 7% |
Australia | 1 | 1% |
Germany | 1 | 1% |
New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
Colombia | 1 | 1% |
South Africa | 1 | 1% |
Other | 4 | 6% |
Unknown | 14 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 34 | 50% |
Scientists | 31 | 46% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 4% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
Spain | 1 | 2% |
Canada | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 49 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 8 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 7 | 13% |
Other | 6 | 11% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 9% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 9% |
Other | 16 | 30% |
Unknown | 7 | 13% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 33% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 22% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 13% |
Computer Science | 3 | 6% |
Engineering | 2 | 4% |
Other | 5 | 9% |
Unknown | 7 | 13% |