We are very sorry for that, because Dr. Zimmern’s reply doesn’t express the Editors-in-Chief’s opinion, but solely his own, and therefore should have been labled as “Correspondence” instead of “Editorial”. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience. The Publisher”
“Dr. Stemerding is to be commended for his paper in which he seeks to reflect on community genetics “in the light of the emerging field of public health genomics”. His evidence comes from an appraisal of the contents of the journal Community Genetics. His conclusion is that a tension exists between the “professional endeavour” of community

genetics and its function “as a programme aiming at individual empowerment” which, he says, has significance not only for that discipline but also for public health genomics (Stemerding Captisol research buy 2010). So what are these two disciplines, and how do they

differ, if they do at all? The founders of community genetics clearly see their’s as a “unique concept” with “its own place besides clinical genetics and public health genomics (ten Kate 2008)”. They suggest that the “aims of community genetics and public health genetics are not the same, although they have much in common” Nepicastat order (Schmidtke and ten Kate 2010). In my reply, I agree with the author that the tension referred to in the paper applies to both disciplines, but I suggest not just to them alone, but across all medical specialties. I also seek to dispel the notion that, apart from a slight difference in emphasis, community genetics is unique and different from public health genomics. I shall argue that they are in essence

one single discipline. Their histories are, of course, clearly different, the one coming from the selleck chemicals llc practice of clinical genetics, with an emphasis on inherited and heritable disorders, the other from the practice of public health, with perhaps a greater interest in common Metalloexopeptidase complex diseases, such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer. But I suggest that, history aside, both fields have the same aims, the same tensions, the same problems, and the same aspirations for improving the health of individuals and populations, notwithstanding the fact that emphasis and areas of interest may be slightly different. Community genetics gave itself a new definition in 2010 (ten Kate et al. 2010) which in essence uses much the same language as the earlier definitions of public health genomics: “the art and science of the responsible and realistic application of health and disease-related genetics and genomics knowledge and technologies in human populations and communities to the benefit of individuals therein” The definition of public health genomics, agreed at Bellagio in 2005 (Bellagio Report 2005; Burke et al.