In this respect, community genetics may be contrasted to public health genomics, even though both fields share the aim of integrating genetics in public health. Firmly rooted in a public health tradition, public health genomics emphasizes the improvement of population health as its key objective. Indeed, the focus on health from a population perspective is exactly the reason why proponents of the field prefer to name it ‘public health genomics’ instead of ‘community genetics’ (Knoppers

and Brand 2009). In adopting informed choice as a key concept, community genetics not only distinguishes itself click here from public health genomics, but it also highlights an important tension between professional regulation and individual empowerment; however, in this latter respect, community genetics involves a challenge that is also highly significant for our understanding of the future prospects of public health genomics. Moving from opposite starting points, community genetics and public health genomics, in a common endeavour to find more integrate genetics into public health, to some extent are heading for a similar approach. I have described the agenda of community genetics in terms of different movements, including a shift in focus away from individuals to populations. In similar terms, we

can describe the programme of public health genomics as a movement from the population level to a more individualised approach. Thus, it is stated as the “holy grail” of public health genomics that, based on a fuller understanding of genetic and environmental factors involved in the AZD0156 in vivo causation of disease, it will be possible to devise effective preventive interventions targeted at individuals with Leukotriene-A4 hydrolase specific genotypes (Zimmern and Stewart 2006). In other words, instead of the traditional “one size

fits all” stance underlying whole-population strategies in public health, public health genomics promises a more nuanced approach that incorporates differences in individual susceptibility as opportunities for individualised prevention (Bellagio report 2005). Accordingly, we can observe that in public health genomics too, personal responsibility and empowerment are promoted as final objectives, making public health eventually the result of individual decisions of citizens (Laberge 2002). Another more obvious point, on which community genetics and public health genomics agree, is the belief that genome-based information or interventions should be introduced only in an ‘evidence-based’ way. In this regard, the endeavour of public health genomics obviously also involves a potential tension between the aim of evidence-based interventions and a focus on individual decision making and personal responsibility. Compared to community genetics, this tension may become even more challenging because in public health genomics, as authors about the field contend, “it may be several decades before the scientific basis for the ‘predict and prevent’ scenario can be adequately evaluated” (Stewart et al. 2007).