Training competencies and recommendations for the next generation of public health genetics: Reflections from current leaders in the field.

Training competencies and recommendations for the next generation of public health genetics: Reflections from current leaders in the field - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Search Log in Primary site navigation Search Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Am J Hum Genet . 2025 Nov 19;112(12):2860–2869. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2025.10.016 Training competencies and recommendations for the next generation of public health genetics: Reflections from current leaders in the field Diane Xue 1, ∗ , Elizabeth E Blue 2, 3, 4 , Stephanie M Fullerton 3, 5 , Nora B Henrikson 6 , Sarah Knerr 7 , Anne-Marie Laberge 8, 9 , Lisa S Parker 10 , Maya Sabatello 11, 12 , Nirupama Nini Shridhar 13 , Jennifer A Smith 14, 15 , Benjamin S Wilfond 16, 17 , Genevieve L Wojcik 18 , Joon-Ho Yu 3, 4, 5, 16, 17, 19, 20 , Alison E Fohner 3, 19, 20 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Department of Genetics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA 2 Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA 3 Institute for Public Health Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA 4 Brotman Baty Institute, Seattle, WA 98195, USA 5 Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195, USA 6 Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98101 USA 7 Department of Health Systems and Population Health, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA 98195, USA 8 Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, CHU Sainte-Justine and Universite de Montreal, Montreal, QC H3T 1C5, Canada 9 Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Universite de Montreal, Montreal, QC H3T 1C5, Canada 10 Center for Bioethics & Health Law, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA 11 Center for Precision Medicine and Genomics, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY 10032, USA 12 Division of Ethics, Department of Medical Humanities and Ethics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY 10032, USA 13 Genetics Program, Washington State Department of Health, Shoreline, WA 98155, USA 14 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA 15 Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA 16 Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195, USA 17 Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics and Palliative Care, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98101, USA 18 Department of Epidemiology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore MD 21045, USA 19 Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA ∗ Corresponding author diane.xue@pennmedicine.upenn.edu 20 Senior author Received 2025 Sep 12; Accepted 2025 Oct 29; Issue date 2025 Dec 4. © 2025 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Society of Human Genetics. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC12808948  PMID: 41265452 Summary Public health genetics training programs must evolve to meet the changing public health landscape and ever-growing data availability. Yet, the field’s interdisciplinary nature poses challenges to training program development. Here, we conducted focus groups ( n = 7) with public-health-genetics-related professionals ( n = 55) to learn about the skills and knowledge needed for a career in public health genetics. Additional discussion topics included perspectives on curriculum structure, analytic skills, and unneeded content. Focus group transcripts underwent thematic analysis, from which competencies and pedagogical recommendations were derived. Informants across academia, government, and industry represented specialties in bioethics, policy, genetic epidemiology, medical genetics, statistical genetics, and law. Discussions led to 17 competencies that group into four learning goals: (1) foundational knowledge in genetics and public health (e.g., principles of population genetics and history of unethical genomic practices), (2) analytical proficiency (e.g., managing qualitative and quantitative datasets), (3) application of interdisciplinary methods to research design and practice (e.g., developing research questions at the intersection of genomics and health services), and (4) cross-disciplinary collaboration (e.g., cultural and disciplinary humility in communication). Informants recommended pedagogical priorities including strong mentorship, broad core requirements plus specialization tracks, and hands-on, interdisciplinary projects. Conceptual knowledge and critical thinking were emphasized over technical proficiency in specific methods. We translated the recommendations from current experts into guidance for training programs that will best meet the evolving needs of the public health genetics field. Training should emphasize broad foundational knowledge and team science skills to facilitate cross-disciplinary communication and meet emerging challenges. Keywords: public health genetics, training, curriculum, genomics education As genomics becomes increasingly embedded in research, healthcare, and society, training programs must adapt. Through focus groups with leaders across public health genetics subfields, we developed updated competencies reflecting the skills future practitioners need, emphasizing foundational knowledge, analytical proficiency, interdisciplinary application, and cross-sector collaboration. Introduction Genetics and genomics have enabled major public health breakthroughs, including newborn screening, infectious disease tracking, and identification of important contributors to chronic and rare diseases. 1 , 2 At the same time, the use of genetics in the name of public health has had harmful effects, including the fueling of eugenics and race science. 3 , 4 The field of public health genetics was established in recognition of both the promise and pitfalls of translating genetics into public health. 5 , 6 In 2001, the Office of Genetics and Disease Prevention (now called Genomics and Precision Health) at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published a set of genomic competencies for the public health workforce ( https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/genomics/translation/competencies/index.htm ). These competencies—aimed at those already working in public health, including state and local health administrations, environmental health specialists, and health educators—established a set of expectations for all public health professionals. Key among these expectations are that public health professionals are able to “identify ethical and medical limitations to genetics tests,” “maintain up-to-date knowledge on the development of genetic advances and technologies,” and “participate in strategic policy planning and development related to genetic testing or genomic programs.” Over a quarter-century later, genomic data are more ubiquitous, comprehensive, and accessible. Genomic data, including genome sequencing, are now available across research, healthcare, and consumer-facing settings. These developments have laid the groundwork for precision public health, which seeks to leverage genomic and other emerging data to improve population health. 1 , 7 Yet, the societal implications of genomics have grown more urgent, as protections and governance have not kept pace with the proliferation of genomic data and their uses, raising risks such as genetic discrimination, re-identification, unconsented secondary use, and widening disparities. Despite advances, the integration of genomics into public health practice has been limited. 8 , 9 Stakeholders often perceive a trade-off with investments in social and behavioral determinants and cite operational barriers, such as unclear use cases, limited transportability, and workforce gaps. 9 , 10 Addressing these barriers requires professionals with cross-cutting expertise who can link genomic methods to public health goals ( Figure 1 ). 10 , 11 In addition, the field of genomics has evolved and continues to evolve dramatically, presenting opportunities and challenges for public health to benefit from genomics. 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 Thus, compared to 30 years ago, a public health genetics trainee must simultaneously overcome persistent challenges and navigate new ones. Figure 1. Open in a new tab Public health genetics contributions to essential public health services through research and practice This framework is adapted from Beskow et al. 16 Research is a central part of public health genetics; these research findings across domains contribute to a wide range of activities that integrate genomics into the Essential Public Health Services established by the Institute of Medicine. 17 Examples of public health genetics activities are shown in the second ring. Toward ensuring a genetics-equipped public health workforce now and into the future as the field evolves, we sought to develop up-to-date learning competencies as a resource for public health genetics training programs. To do so, we organized focus group discussions with current leaders across public health genetics subdomains, including genetic epidemiology, law, bioethics, and public health practice. These competencies build on the original CDC workforce competencies by addressing the field’s evolution over the past three decades and by targeting academic preparation beyond public health practice for varied roles across government, academia, and industry while also preserving flexibility as the field continues to evolve. The study was led by the University of Washington (UW) Institute for Public Health Genetics (IPHG), which has offered master’s and doctoral degrees in public health genetics since 1997 and 2004, respectively. Methods Data collection We invited public-health-genetics-related professionals across academic institutions, government, industry, and non-profit organizations as key informants to participate in focus group discussions about the skills, knowledge, and training needed for current and future careers in public health genetics. We used a combination of purposive and convenience sampling. Specific job titles and areas of expertise were considered to ensure representation of public health genetics subdisciplines, including but not limited to ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSIs), clinical genetics, statistical genetics, and genetic epidemiology. Informants were identified through the professional networks of study investigators and informants. Invitations were sent via email, informing potential informants that the discussions would contribute to the revision of the public health genetics curriculum at the UW IPHG and ultimately inform the field. In total, 114 individuals were invited. Based on informant availability, three types of discussion groups were convened: ELSI experts, genetic epidemiology/statistical genetics experts, and a mix of both. Prior to discussions, informants were provided an information sheet describing the field of public health genetics ( Document S1 ) and specific information about the master’s and doctoral training programs offered by the UW IPHG. A discussion guide was developed to solicit informant perspectives on the skills, knowledge, and training that the informants considered important for their own success in public health genetics careers, perspectives on essential versus unnecessary skills and knowledge in the field, and predictions for the future demands of a public health genetics workforce ( Document S2 ). Following each focus group discussion, we adjusted the guide to improve wording and phrasing while maintaining question fidelity. All discussions were facilitated by J.-H.Y. and A.E.F. and conducted virtually using Zoom. All discussions were recorded, transcribed, and de-identified for qualitative analysis. Data analysis We developed an initial codebook, including structural codes to reflect the questions asked in the focus groups. Thematic codes identified during analysis were then added iteratively. Three coders (D.X., J.-H.Y., and A.E.F.) independently coded each transcript. After coding was merged for each transcript, coding discrepancies were resolved through discussion. The codebook was iteratively refined after each discussion. Upon completing the first round of coding all transcripts, D.X. conducted a final review of the transcripts to ensure consistent and comprehensive application of final codes. Transcripts were coded using Atlas.ti v.23. Coded quotations were then organized by code and code group. Each author reviewed an assigned portion of the coded quotations to identify patterns of response. These initial findings were then reviewed and discussed by all authors and the faculty of the UW IPHG. During this iterative analysis, we drafted memos to describe thematic findings for each code group (e.g., methods and data management; bioethics and ELSIs; statistical genetics and genetic epidemiology). We synthesized these memos into higher-level themes that informed our key findings and core competencies for public health genetics professionals. Competencies were developed based on the “Competency-to-Curriculum Toolkit” by the Working Group on Competency-Based Curriculum of the Public Health Workforce Development Collaboration ( https://phabc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Competency-to-Curriculum-Toolkit.pdf ). We also referenced the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health “Competencies and Learning Outcomes” 18 and the “National Science Foundation Essential Competencies for Interdisciplinary Graduate Training” ( https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED553183.pdf ). The key findings and core competencies presented in this paper reflect discussions and consensus from this full writing group. Our study received an exemption determination by the UW Human Subjects Division (STUDY00019628). Results Focus group member characteristics Of the 114 people invited to join focus group discussions, 55 people attended one of seven focus group discussions. Focus groups had a mean of eight informants, ranging from six to nine. Focus group members were predominantly in academic roles, women, and White, and 20% were graduates of the UW IPHG programs ( Table 1 ). In addition to academic roles (e.g., university professors), occupations varied widely, representing the public sector (e.g., government employees working in public health programs) and industry (e.g., lead researchers and policymakers in biotech and insurance companies). Focus group members represented various subdisciplines of the public health genetics field, including bioethics (55%), social sciences (45%), genetic epidemiology (42%), medical genetics (40%), statistical genetics (35%), and law (27%). Table 1. Participant demographics Characteristic n (%) Age (years) <45 16 (29%) 45–54 22 (39%) >54 18 (32%) Gender Woman 40 (71%) Man 16 (29%) Race/ethnicity (multiple options) Asian <5 Black/African American <5 Hispanic/Latino <5 Middle Eastern/North African <5 White 51 Workplace setting Academic institution 45 (80%) Government 5 (9%) Industry <5 Non-profit <5 Research institution <5 Years in the field 5–10 8 (15%) 11–15 10 (18%) 16–20 16 (29%) >20 20 (36%) Alumni of UW IPHG 11 (20%) Public health genetics topic area Bioethics 30 (55%) Social sciences 25 (45%) Genetic epidemiology 23 (42%) Medical genetics 22 (40%) Statistical genetics 19 (35%) Law 15 (27%) Other 11 (20%) Open in a new tab Despite the varied composition of focus groups, discussions highlighted many similar themes about the knowledge and skills needed of individuals entering the public health genetics workforce. Table S1 summarizes the codes used, working definition, frequency, and example quotes. We distilled the conversation into the following key themes. Key themes Genetics can strengthen public health efforts, but tensions remain between public health and genetics Most groups expressed concern that, rather than viewing public health and genomics as complementary approaches to improving health outcomes, a zero-sum perspective prevails, where resources applied to genomics-informed strategies are viewed as focused on individuals in contrast to broader population-based public health strategies. For example, P7.H noted that “there is a concern that genomics is going to take away from other priorities. It’s often framed as a dichotomy, and … the challenge with public health in particular is that if you focus on genetics, you don’t … focus on social determinants of health.” Another group highlighted that while genomics has made meaningful contributions to public health, a core challenge may lie in how these contributions are conveyed. P1.D commented that “there’s almost an antipathy between genomics and public health. They’re not viewed as complementary at all. And largely, I think it’s because there’s a lack of understanding of genetics and genomics … We haven’t been as successful as perhaps we could have been in showing the relevance of genomics, especially as we’ve had this overarching context of social determinants of health.” Additionally, informants were attuned to the harmful role genetics has played in public health. Several focus groups highlighted the importance of students learning about the eugenics movement. One informant expressed concern, stating “I’m just really surprised that students don’t know a lot about … the history of eugenics and the involvement of the genetics field and the public health field. Students come into my first class, having never heard of it before” (P6.C). Another discussion focused on teaching history to provide important context for current ethical challenges in integrating genomics into population health, with one informant (P7.F) stating I feel that it's been really helpful for me to understand some of the past controversies around genetics … even if you’re pretty solidly on the genomics side, understanding some things about controversy around spending money on the Human Genome Project … the things we face every day in the decision making around public health … deeper eugenics … really bringing that forward into things that are still happening today that have the same taste. Public health genetics’ interdisciplinarity fosters broad expertise but presents challenges to defining skills and professional identity Informants emphasized the importance of providing students with a broad understanding of the range of disciplines that constitute public health genetics, regardless of individual student disciplinary focus or topical interest. As P3.D describes, “If given ‘choose your own adventure’, I would have chosen all kinds of health education, ELSI kinds of courses … I never would have had genetic epidemiology. I never would have had more biostats, and all of that helped me not only in my actual research, but it helped me to better understand what I was reading, what I was interacting with.” There was a consensus across focus groups that a strong interdisciplinary foundation is needed to prepare students to engage with the complexity of public health genetics and to foster cross-disciplinary collaboration in the workplace. P4.A reflected on their public health genetics training, stating that “that breadth of skill sets that I was able to pick up that have made me very indispensable on my team ” and that exposure to these diverse domains allows them to “make those cross disciplinary links.” This was echoed in another focus group, where P2.D commented that “both sides of IPHG [a) statistical and clinical genomic applications and b) ethical, legal, and social implications of genomics 19 ] are super and immediately useful,” and P2.E added, “I would totally agree. I think the breadth of the experience that we got … you can have the statistics, the epidemiology, the policy, the study design all in one person rather than multiple employees.” Informants articulated that working in an interdisciplinary field such as public health genetics requires more than broad knowledge of foundational principles from across fields; rather, one must understand how the subdisciplines are intertwined. For example, P7.C noted how important it is that students emerge from training “knowing where you’re coming from, knowing what you’re aiming for, knowing the steps to get there, knowing how things are connected, knowing the history, the politics, the policy.” Another informant commented, “If there are ways to bridge between classes or within classes … some of these topics also help students to feel like, even if they’re focusing on genetic epidemiology, someone’s coming after a conversation about population genetics and talking about the ethical implications of using race in genetic epidemiology studies” (P3.D). Conversely, balancing an interdisciplinary portfolio brings challenges regarding professional identity. For example, P7.H stated, “What is our identity? Because we’re so multidisciplinary. I think that’s part of the problem in terms of the framing of the degree. Because genetic epi, I can picture right away, but just ‘public health genomics’ and you get blank stares. Is it health services research? Is it behavioral science research? Ethics? Is it legal research? This sort of breadth and the depth, I think, is our curse also, because we’re so not well defined that it hurts us when we’re trying to do work.” Similarly, P3.G shared, “It was definitely not as easy to be an interdisciplinary trained person from this program in an environment where everyone wants you to be in a box, and you can change boxes, and could be in multiple boxes, but you can’t like not be in a box, right? They’re not comfortable with that, and I just didn’t really feel like I had a home.” Public health genetics mastery requires a foundation in genetics, range of applied research methods, and critical-thinking skills A solid foundation in the methods of public health genetics subdisciplines was described as crucial, but notably, methodological awareness—understanding when and how to apply different methods and critically interpreting results for different purposes—was deemed more essential than technical proficiency in every method. For example, P7.C described this as “knowing the technologies, both the statistical technologies as well as the data generation technologies and what they can and can’t tell you. And then how you move that kind of downstream into implementation, into policy change and things like that.” One informant noted that, as better and sleeker tools are developed, complex analyses will be conducted with simply “pushing a button to get the output, but interpreting the output based on the hypothesis – those are the skills, I think, that would need more work” (P7.E). Focus group informants placed much higher value on data proficiency and interpreting uncertainty than on competency with the latest analysis tools. P4.B shared, “I think communication of uncertainty with like numeracy and uncertainty, not just understanding them yourselves, but being able to communicate them is incredibly critical to this field, because you’re bridging together a bunch of different areas where a lot of that uncertainty lives.” Population genetics were highlighted as crucial. In a discussion of necessary courses, P5.F answered, “a molecular population genetics course, because everyone’s gonna have a complete genome sequence with all sorts of features on them,” a sentiment shared by P5.C, who stated, “Population genetics is really what makes you a genetic epidemiologist and not just an epidemiologist.” In addition to methodological awareness, data proficiency, and knowledge of genomic principles, informants highlighted the importance of critical thinking and curiosity. P4.H shared “what I’m hearing from people is the importance of learning evergreen skillsets, so it’s not necessarily a training on [qualitative data analysis software]. It’s like, what is the importance of the intersection of qualitative and quantitative data. What is research integrity and why is it like the backbone of science? You don’t know what … you need to know. How do you go out and find it?” This sentiment was echoed in a separate discussion, where P2.B commented, “One of the most important things is the fundamental knowledge and critical thinking skills. No matter how the field changes in terms of what new technologies or what new issues come around, if you’ve got those fundamental skills, you’ll be able to keep up with things.” Deeper expertise in a public health genetics subfield is crucial for understanding and solving problems Beyond a solid core curriculum that broadly covers the public health genetics subdisciplines, groups reinforced the idea that students should cultivate the ability to engage deeply within specific areas of public health genetics. The curriculum needs to include specialized courses covering subfields more deeply that students can select based on their interests. While broad, interdisciplinary knowledge is vital for interdisciplinary work, focusing on one area of expertise enables students to contribute meaningfully to advancing research and practice. For example, as P1.C states, “people have had to find a niche or a home in health services and genetic epidemiology and ethics … They’ve had to find this home where they bring the interdisciplinary approach of public health genetics. But one element needs to be at the forefront, or they can at least prove that they have the training that can be recognized within that one field.” Another informant noted, “public health genetics with a strong training in genetics really gave me a grounding that helped me to find my way … it just gave me a little bit of extra disciplinary guidance to find where I was going” (P3.D). Ultimately, someone with broad exposure to public health genetics but deeper skills in a particular subfield can be successful at “understanding, you know, where the issues are, understanding the fundamentals in terms of how to do the assessments, to understand the problem, and asking the right questions” (P7.H). In another group, informants discussed that while a broad understanding provides students with context, disciplinary expertise is needed in order to appreciate other perspectives. For example, “if you get in on the ground floor from different perspectives, you actually see, then view, and then, you know, construct the problem differently, and that, I think, is really valuable” (P6.G). Effective communication across academic and non-academic settings is critical for public health application Communication emerged as one of the most critical skills for public health genetics professionals and one of the top skills considered in hiring. P1.B emphasized, “I would hire someone, no matter what their CV looks like or what they’ve been trained in, can they write? If someone can write … I would hire them and employ them.” Science communication, policy translation, and interdisciplinary dialogue were identified as key areas where strong communication skills are essential for impact and knowledge dissemination. Further, informants reported that a lack of effective communication can serve as a barrier to collaboration, policy change, and public trust. As summarized by one informant, “being able to listen, identify a problem and then … communicate that problem and rally interest and think more about that problem … Those are skills that I also think will help students to be effective” (P6.A). These skills were also described as critical to writing grant proposals or publications that report work: “it’s not just to understand the methods, but it’s also to write. Learn how to research existing work, to synthesize, to bring it nicely together” (P7.D). The focus group discussions highlighted that students must be equipped to explain complex public health genetics concepts in accessible ways to diverse stakeholders, including policymakers, community organizations, healthcare professionals, and the general public. Developing collaboration skills is the key to interdisciplinary success Informants noted that successful collaboration requires not only technical expertise but also interpersonal skills, such as teamwork, professionalism, and humility: it is “really important to be able to talk across disciplines. So, being comfortable with the vocabulary, being respectful of the disciplines. You know, good listening skills and so on” (P6.F). Collaboration is not just about teamwork but is about understanding and respecting the expertise that different fields bring to a problem. Students must learn how to navigate multidisciplinary teams, resolve conflicts, and integrate multiple perspectives into cohesive research and policy solutions. Informants recommended that training programs should actively cultivate these attributes to ensure that students can work effectively across disciplines and with diverse stakeholders. Ultimately, focus group informants with training in public health genetics found that they brought great value to interdisciplinary teams by being translators. “I think that idea of speaking multiple languages, of knowing enough that you can engage with somebody who’s going to do some experimental follow up, or somebody who generated the dataset that you are gonna be looking at and knowing enough to be able to talk to them and understand enough of their expertise to be able to appreciate both how it was done, but also comment on it” (P5.B). As described, being a good public health genetics translator and contributor requires broad public health genetics knowledge, data proficiency, deep domain knowledge, communication, and teamwork. Competencies for public health genetics training From these key themes, we developed competencies for the public health genetics workforce that operationalize the findings from our key informant focus group discussions to inform curriculum development and pedagogy in public health genetics training programs ( Box 1 ). The seventeen learning competencies are grouped into four learning goal categories: (1) foundational knowledge in genetics and public health, which includes basic understanding of the field and its history; (2) data and analytical proficiency, which covers breadth of knowledge in public health genetics subdomains, especially related to methods and data analysis; (3) application of interdisciplinary methods to research design and practice, which prioritizes the integration of methods and ideas across subdisciplines to conduct research studies; and (4) cross-disciplinary collaboration and communication, which operationalizes the interpersonal and communication skills needed to be successful. We translated the key themes and competencies to update the curriculum of the IPHG at UW ( Table 2 ). Box 1. Competencies for public health genetics training programs. Learning goal 1: Foundational knowledge in genetics and public health 1.1 Describe fundamental principles of molecular genetics and population genetics. 1.2 Analyze the interplay between individual- and population-level health, emphasizing how genetics and genomics inform public health outcomes and practices. 1.3 Identify major healthcare systems and delivery models, articulating the role of genetics in these systems and models. 1.4 Distinguish identity-related concepts, such as dis/ability, sex/gender, race, and ancestry, from genetics and recognize their relevance and application in public health and healthcare. 1.5 Articulate the historical context, theoretical frameworks, and ongoing ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSIs) related to genetics and genomics and to public health. Learning goal 2: Data management and analytical proficiency 2.1 Demonstrate proficiency in managing and analyzing datasets using appropriate software and statistical techniques. 2.2 Demonstrate ability to conduct reproducible research. 2.3 Master fundamental principles of epidemiology, biostatistics, and genetic data analysis. 2.4 Apply empirical methods to answer ELSI research questions. Learning goal 3: Application of interdisciplinary methods to research design and practice 3.1 Demonstrate ability to develop research questions and to design studies addressing the role of genetics, bioethics, law, bioinformatics, epidemiology, and health services at the intersection of genomics and public health. 3.2 Evaluate ethical considerations and limitations associated with the use of genomics in research and translation. 3.3 Describe and apply implementation science frameworks to translate genomic findings into actionable public health strategies and policies. Learning goal 4: Cross-disciplinary collaboration and communication 4.1 Demonstrate the ability to adapt writing and other presentation styles for various stakeholders, including academic peers, policymakers, and the general public, enhancing the impact of public health messaging. 4.2 Display humility and cultural competence in communication. 4.3 Incorporate constructive feedback into the writing process, showcasing an ability to revise and improve drafts in collaboration with peers and mentors. Table 2. Example of translating competencies to curriculum: Proposed changes to the UW Institute for Public Health Genetics curriculum informed by public health genetics expert focus groups Competency Concept Rationale Implementation example Learning goal 1: Foundational knowledge in genetics and public health broaden required core curriculum comprehensive foundational public health genetics knowledge shared across all students students must take an introductory-level course in the following domains: (1) qualitative methods, (2) health systems, (3) non-genetic determinants of health (e.g., social determinants of health), and (4) translation sciences (e.g., implementation science, program evaluation, or health economics) increase flexibility of course options to meet core requirements greater flexibility to adapt to the evolving public health genetics landscape and coursework availability in external departments; ability to tailor coursework to student interests and backgrounds for foundational knowledge in genetics, students may choose between advanced human genetics or two other courses in population genetics (statistical or anthropological) for foundational knowledge in translational considerations, students may choose course(s) from program evaluation, implementation science, or health economics expand options for pre-approved elective courses, grouped by specialization tract guide students toward relevant courses for their interest in a particular public health genetics domain pre-approved elective tracts developed for student specialization in molecular genetics, pathogen genetics, bioinformatics, policy/translation, or ELSIs Learning goal 2: Data management and analytical proficiency require expanded foundational courses in biostatistics and epidemiology strengthen analytic skills and knowledge of study designs students required to take a full biostatistics foundational series (later series courses were previously electives) and a more advanced and comprehensive series on epidemiologic methods require training in data management for public health genomic analysis increasingly requires remote/cloud computing, very large databases, incomplete data, and leveraging data collected for other purposes students required to take a course on data management for public health addressing cloud and cluster computing, command line programming, analysis considerations of large datasets (missing data and cleaning), and database linkage Learning goal 3: Application of interdisciplinary methods to research design and practice model interdisciplinary collaboration and approaches to public-health-genetics-related concepts coursework is siloed by department, but interdisciplinary training is needed the required public health genetics student seminar will model how faculty use different public health genetics domains to address the same problems, e.g., speakers may include researchers who either develop sequencing methods or apply those methods in clinical care or those who evaluate the economic or policy implications of sequencing technologies Learning goal 4: Cross-disciplinary collaboration and communication recommend courses on communication and critiquing scientific research proposals written communication is important for advancing public-health-genetics-related grants, papers, or policies students highly encouraged to take a course on preparing, writing, and critiquing scientific research proposals (not required due to limited course enrollment) expand requirements to present research orally public speaking is a key component of successful communication master’s students required to present their thesis in the public health genetics student seminar; doctoral students required to give a public oral presentation in their general examination preceding closed questioning from dissertation committee require practice in interdisciplinary teams students must learn skills to be successful in teams of people with diverse backgrounds and contributions students to work in peer groups to tackle public-health-genetics-related questions in the required public health genetics student seminar Open in a new tab Pedagogical considerations In addition to knowledge and skills, focus group informants highlighted several key didactic considerations to improve the efficacy of interdisciplinary training. These considerations included greater integration of disciplines rather than a broad collection of classes on different public health genetics subtopics, balancing the core curriculum with flexibility for specialization, and the necessity of structured mentorship to develop disciplinary depth. Centrally planned interdisciplinary curriculum Often, higher education is structured in silos, with classes covering subdisciplines. As with all interdisciplinary fields, integrating across these disciplines is paramount yet difficult to model or teach in traditional pedagogical structures. Informants emphasized the need for instructional strategies that actively promote integration, such as case-based learning, team-based creative problem solving, cross-disciplinary projects, and interactive discussions that require students to synthesize knowledge from multiple fields. P6.G provided an example from their training, reflecting that “the best training I got was when I was in business school, because you work on cases together … you get practice working on teams. You see people working on teams. And it’s just accepted that that’s the way things get done.” A public health genetics program could incorporate expert panels or guest speakers that bring together professionals from different areas of public health genetics to discuss their perspectives on key topics, allowing students to observe how interdisciplinary collaboration functions in practice. Broad core curriculum, with flexibility through specialization tracks Another key recommendation was the need for a broad core curriculum required of all students, plus specialization tracks. Beyond the importance of core knowledge, one informant said, “one thing a common core does is, it creates a sense of community among your first-year students. So the idea is, I have a good common core. Everyone’s gonna find parts of it challenging. And therefore you, you then go to the student that understands it, and they’ll come back to you …” (P5.F). Thus, a common curriculum contributes to learning goal #4 of developing collaboration skills. However, while public health genetics is inherently interdisciplinary and all students should have core competencies, requiring students to develop depth in a chosen area—such as statistical genetics, genetic epidemiology, bioethics, law, ethics, or policy—ensures that they can meaningfully contribute to their field while maintaining an understanding of the broader landscape. Structured mentorship and practical experience to supplement coursework Informants also highlighted the importance of structured mentorship in public health genetics training programs, as mentorship provides students with essential guidance for navigating the complexities of a field without clear and narrow career tracks. P1.E emphasized “ I actually think that this point about career mentorship and career guidance is a real, it is a fundamental issue, and … It is separate from the curriculum, but it has to be thought of at least simultaneously.” The need for building in mentorship alongside curriculum was echoed in another discussion, with P5.C recommending that programs “really build in the mentorship plan, not make it an afterthought or a separate thing. Make sure, you know … think of it as a central part of the student-success paradigm.” Similarly, internship opportunities and partnerships with professionals conducting public health genetics work were strongly encouraged. While coursework can provide some common foundation, as P2.F states, “There has to be some application … sometimes it’s not about the things you learn in the actual coursework. There has to be other opportunities to learn skills too.” Discussion We identified essential skills for the future workforce and strategies for successful training programs based on the input of 55 public health genetics professionals. Given the interdisciplinary nature of the work, highly technical data, and rapidly evolving methods and applications, they emphasized broad conceptual knowledge, awareness of historical context, critical thinking, and collaboration as the most important skills for success in public-health-genetics-related careers. By distilling key learning competencies and pedagogical recommendations, we present a resource for public health genetics programs to develop or revise their curriculum to best meet the needs of the current and future public health genetics field. A perceived tension between genetic contributions to health operating on an individual level and environmental determinants of health operating on a population level was an important backdrop for our focus group discussions. 11 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 Focus group members discussed the burden they felt to prove the value of genomics to public health efforts and emphasized the need for education about interactions between genetic, behavioral, and social determinants of health. Furthermore, they discussed how understanding the historical harms of genetics in public health can help explain current tensions. Our focus groups highlighted that the tension between genetic and non-genetic determinants of health will continue to be a key challenge in public health spaces. By intentionally acknowledging these challenges and their causes, future professionals can better navigate the complex ethical landscape and conduct research that is both scientifically rigorous and socially responsible. 1 , 5 , 15 In addition to themes that may be unique to public health genetics, discussions identified broader themes relevant to all interdisciplinary fields. For example, focus group informants encouraged balancing broad knowledge with opportunities for specialization in order to simultaneously drive innovation and enable cross-disciplinary collaboration. Fittingly, the ability to communicate (i.e., written, oral, formal, and informal) and to work with others across a range of disciplines was frequently emphasized. Many informants highlighted the ability to connect across fields within public health genetics as a unique contribution of IPHG trainees. In practice, these reflections direct training to focus on both scientific writing and individual performance, as well as teamwork, verbal communication, policy briefing, and public engagement. By fostering these collaboration skills, public health genetics training programs can prepare students to lead and participate in cross-sector partnerships that drive impactful research and practice. 24 Of particular importance was the emphasis on developing “evergreen” or perennial skills, such as critical thinking, data management, and interpretation of results, rather than amassing technical knowledge of current tools. We note these conversations as striking given the growing ease of analysis using statistical packages or artificial intelligence, such that competency must extend beyond “pressing a button” or even knowing which button to press (i.e., which tool to use). 25 Teaching students how to learn or pick up new analytic tools sustains methodological agility, ensuring their ability to integrate evolving technologies and statistical techniques. As software and tools become more accessible, discernment of both tools and data, including their strengths, weaknesses, sources, and quality, becomes even more important. Repositories and biobanks hold datasets that are ever growing in size and scope. 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 In a world where data and potential research questions are virtually limitless, students can overcome pitfalls by learning to think critically about what questions can and should be asked, selecting appropriate tools, preparing data, and interpreting results and limitations. Beyond course content and individual skills, informants in many focus groups highlighted the importance of strong, structured mentorship. Engaged academic and career mentors are needed to help students navigate the possibilities presented by future roles. 30 , 31 In addition to mentorship, several groups mentioned the role of cohort dynamics. With recent shifts toward online learning, cohort bonds within an academic program can be weakened. In an interdisciplinary program, students in the same cohort will develop different strengths and interests, so mutual support among peers can help students develop well-rounded foundations and provide exposure to different domains. This mix of peers who contribute varied expertise toward a common goal also reflects the dynamics of future work environments. As such, we were cautioned to consider strategies to foster community as a key measure of program success. Our study has some limitations. The coding team (D.X., J.-H.Y., and A.E.F.) consisted entirely of investigators affiliated with the UW IPHG, which may have introduced bias in framing and interpretation despite the inclusion of leaders from other public health genetics programs. Second, while informants provided varied perspectives across public health domains from research to practice, the informants are not necessarily completely representative of the broader public health genetics workforce. Conclusion As the field of public health genetics enters its fourth decade, we present an updated set of learning competencies based on the experiences and views of 55 public health genetics professionals. Interestingly, many of the recommended skills were not specific to public health genetics but rather highlighted the importance of critical thinking, communication, and collaboration, taught through a public health genetics lens. Employing genetics and genomics holds great promise for transforming public health; we provide strategies for training a workforce that can deliver on this promise. Data and code availability The complete focus group transcripts from this study have not been deposited into a public repository due to the risk of identifiability to informants. De-identified coding outputs are available from the corresponding authors upon request. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the key informants, including Kyle Brothers, Matt Conomos, Maitreya Dunham, Laura Heath, Amy Hoffman, Anna Mastroianni, Sarah Nelson, Karen Niemchick, Kayte Spector-Bagdady, John Thompson, and Ken Thummel, who participated in our focus groups, for their time and valuable insights. Author contributions Conceptualization, D.X., J.-H.Y., and A.E.F.; formal analysis, D.X., J.-H.Y., and A.E.F.; investigation, D.X., J.-H.Y., and A.E.F.; project administration, D.X.; visualization, D.X., J.-H.Y., and A.E.F.; writing – original draft, D.X., J.-H.Y., and A.E.F.; writing – review & editing, all authors; funding acquisition, J.-H.Y. and A.E.F.; supervision, J.-H.Y. and A.E.F. Declaration of interests The authors declare no competing interests. Published: November 19, 2025 Footnotes Supplemental information can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2025.10.016 . Supplemental information Document S1. Public health genetics info sheet mmc1.pdf (97KB, pdf) Document S2. Example focus group discussion guide mmc2.pdf (138.2KB, pdf) Table S1. IPHG Curriculum Review Codebook 240806 mmc3.xlsx (20.3KB, xlsx) Document S3. Article plus supplemental information mmc4.pdf (2.4MB, pdf) References 1. Roberts M.C., Holt K.E., Del Fiol G., Baccarelli A.A., Allen C.G. Precision public health in the era of genomics and big data. Nat. Med. 2024;30:1865–1873. doi: 10.1038/s41591-024-03098-0. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Abdellaoui A., Yengo L., Verweij K.J.H., Visscher P.M. 15 years of GWAS discovery: Realizing the promise. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2023;110:179–194. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2022.12.011. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Yudell M., Roberts D., DeSalle R., Tishkoff S. Taking race out of human genetics. Science. 2016;351:564–565. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4951. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Herrnstein R.J., Murray C. Simon and Schuster; 2010. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. [ Google Scholar ] 5. McBride C.M., Roberts J.S., Knerr S., Guan Y. Public Health Genomics: Time to Sharpen the Focus. Public Health Genom. 2023;26:171–176. doi: 10.1159/000533985. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. Molster C.M., Bowman F.L., Bilkey G.A., Cho A.S., Burns B.L., Nowak K.J., Dawkins H.J.S. The Evolution of Public Health Genomics: Exploring Its Past, Present, and Future. Front. Public Health. 2018;6 doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00247. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Khoury M.J. From Genes to Public Health: The Journey Continues. Public Health Genom. 2025;28:144–149. doi: 10.1159/000545406. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 8. Khoury M.J., Galea S. Will precision medicine improve population health? JAMA. 2016;316:1357–1358. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.12260. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Niemchick K.L., Goerge A., Ponte A.H. Are We Prepared for Precision Public Health? An Examination of Genomics Content in Graduate Public Health Programs. Public Health Rep. 2022;137:1242–1247. doi: 10.1177/00333549211055708. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Diez Roux A.V. Integrating Social and Biologic Factors in Health Research: A Systems View. Ann. Epidemiol. 2007;17:569–574. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2007.03.001. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Xue D., Hajat A., Fohner A.E. Conceptual frameworks for the integration of genetic and social epidemiology in complex diseases. Glob. Epidemiol. 2024;8 doi: 10.1016/j.gloepi.2024.100156. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Green E.D., Gunter C., Biesecker L.G., Di Francesco V., Easter C.L., Feingold E.A., Felsenfeld A.L., Kaufman D.J., Ostrander E.A., Pavan W.J., et al. Strategic vision for improving human health at The Forefront of Genomics. Nature. 2020;586:683–692. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2817-4. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Khoury M.J., Dotson W.D. From genes to public health: are we ready for DNA-based population screening? Genet. Med. 2021;23:996–998. doi: 10.1038/s41436-021-01141-w. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 14. Khoury M.J., Bowen M.S., Clyne M., Dotson W.D., Gwinn M.L., Green R.F., Kolor K., Rodriguez J.L., Wulf A., Yu W. From public health genomics to precision public health: a 20-year journey. Genet. Med. 2018;20:574–582. doi: 10.1038/gim.2017.211. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. Roberts J.S., Dolinoy D., Tarini B. Emerging issues in public health genomics. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 2014;15:461–480. doi: 10.1146/annurev-genom-090413-025514. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Beskow L.M., Khoury M.J., Baker T.G., Thrasher J.F. The integration of genomics into public health research, policy and practice in the United States. Community Genet. 2001;4:2–11. doi: 10.1159/000051150. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Medicine I. of. The National Academies Press; 1988. The Future of Public Health. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Hooper L., Begg M.D., Sullivan L.M. On Academics Integrating Competencies and Learning Outcomes in Core Courses for the MPH. Public Health Rep. 2014;129:376–381. doi: 10.1177/003335491412900414. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Burke W., Khoury M.J., Stewart A., Zimmern R.L., Bellagio Group, for the B. The path from genome-based research to population health: Development of an international public health genomics network. Genet. Med. 2006;8:451–458. doi: 10.1097/01.gim.0000228213.72256.8c. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. Allen C.G., Fohner A.E., Landry L., Paul J.L., Smith S.G., Turbitt E., Roberts M.C. Perspectives From Early Career Investigators Who Are “Staying in the Game” of Precision Public Health Research. Am. J. Public Health. 2019;109:1186–1187. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305199. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 21. Allen C.G., Fohner A.E., Landry L., Paul J., Smith S.G., Turbitt E., Roberts M.C. Early career investigators and precision public health. Lancet. 2019;394:382–383. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30498-2. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Taylor-Robinson D., Kee F. Precision public health—the Emperor’s new clothes. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2019;48:1–6. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyy184. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Merlin C., Ronald B., Sandro G. “Precision” Public Health — Between Novelty and Hype. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018;379:1398–1400. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1806634. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. Bennett L.M., Gadlin H. Collaboration and Team Science: From Theory to Practice. J. Investig. Med. 2012;60:768–775. doi: 10.231/JIM.0b013e318250871d. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Melisa R., Ashadi A., Triastuti A., Hidayati S., Salido A., Ero P.E.L., Marlini C., Zefrin Z., Al Fuad Z. Critical Thinking in the Age of AI: A Systematic Review of AI’s Effects on Higher Education. Educational Process: Int. J. 2025;14 [ Google Scholar ] 26. Mahmood S.S., Levy D., Vasan R.S., Wang T.J. The Framingham Heart Study and the epidemiology of cardiovascular disease: a historical perspective. Lancet. 2014;383:999–1008. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61752-3. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 27. Sudlow C., Gallacher J., Allen N., Beral V., Burton P., Danesh J., Downey P., Elliott P., Green J., Landray M., et al. UK Biobank: An Open Access Resource for Identifying the Causes of a Wide Range of Complex Diseases of Middle and Old Age. PLoS Med. 2015;12:e1001779-. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001779. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Harris K.M., Halpern C.T., Whitsel E.A., Hussey J.M., Killeya-Jones L.A., Tabor J., Dean S.C. Cohort Profile: The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) Int. J. Epidemiol. 2019;48 doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz115. 1415–1415k. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 29. The All of Us Research Program Investigators The “All of Us” Research Program. N. Engl. J. Med. Overseas. Ed. 2019;381:668–676. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1809937. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 30. Ward E.C., Hargrave C., Brown E., Halkett G., Hogg P. Achieving success in clinically based research: the importance of mentoring. J. Med. Radiat. Sci. 2017;64:315–320. doi: 10.1002/jmrs.234. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 31. Davis F.G. Mentoring in epidemiology and public health training. Ann. Epidemiol. 2013;23:524–527. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2013.05.009. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials Document S1. Public health genetics info sheet mmc1.pdf (97KB, pdf) Document S2. Example focus group discussion guide mmc2.pdf (138.2KB, pdf) Table S1. IPHG Curriculum Review Codebook 240806 mmc3.xlsx (20.3KB, xlsx) Document S3. Article plus supplemental information mmc4.pdf (2.4MB, pdf) Data Availability Statement The complete focus group transcripts from this study have not been deposited into a public repository due to the risk of identifiability to informants. De-identified coding outputs are available from the corresponding authors upon request. Articles from American Journal of Human Genetics are provided here courtesy of American Society of Human Genetics ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (2.4 MB) Cite Collections Permalink RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• Genomic pathway managers: a novel role in the genomic medicine care pathway in France—overview and perspectives#677082
• Genomics Capability Framework for non-genetics health professionals#784693
• Genetic drivers of protein changes over time: Findings, considerations, and approaches in TOPMed cohorts and UK Biobank#657285
• Revolutionizing Personalized Medicine: Synergy with Multi-Omics Data Generation, Main Hurdles, and Future Perspectives#976451
• Million Veteran Program: A mega-biobank to study genetic influences on health and disease#335747