The Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) and a vision for Ecogenomics: the Ecological Genome Project.
Determinants of health
Ecogenomics
Human Genome Organisation
Human Genome Project
One Health
Journal
Human genomics
ISSN: 1479-7364
Titre abrégé: Hum Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101202210
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Dec 2023
18 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
04
05
2023
accepted:
30
11
2023
medline:
19
12
2023
pubmed:
19
12
2023
entrez:
19
12
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The following outlines ethical reasons for widening the Human Genome Organisation's (HUGO) mandate to include ecological genomics. MAIN: The environment influences an organism's genome through ambient factors in the biosphere (e.g. climate and UV radiation), as well as the agents it comes into contact with, i.e. the epigenetic and mutagenic effects of inanimate chemicals and pollution, and pathogenic organisms. Emerging scientific consensus is that social determinants of health, environmental conditions and genetic factors work together to influence the risk of many complex illnesses. That paradigm can also explain the environmental and ecological determinants of health as factors that underlie the (un)healthy ecosystems on which communities rely. We suggest that The Ecological Genome Project is an aspirational opportunity to explore connections between the human genome and nature. We propose consolidating a view of Ecogenomics to provide a blueprint to respond to the environmental challenges that societies face. This can only be achieved by interdisciplinary engagement between genomics and the broad field of ecology and related practice of conservation. In this respect, the One Health approach is a model for environmental orientated work. The idea of Ecogenomics-a term that has been used to relate to a scientific field of ecological genomics-becomes the conceptual study of genomes within the social and natural environment. The HUGO Committee on Ethics, Law and Society (CELS) recommends that an interdisciplinary One Health approach should be adopted in genomic sciences to promote ethical environmentalism. This perspective has been reviewed and endorsed by the HUGO CELS and the HUGO Executive Board.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The following outlines ethical reasons for widening the Human Genome Organisation's (HUGO) mandate to include ecological genomics. MAIN: The environment influences an organism's genome through ambient factors in the biosphere (e.g. climate and UV radiation), as well as the agents it comes into contact with, i.e. the epigenetic and mutagenic effects of inanimate chemicals and pollution, and pathogenic organisms. Emerging scientific consensus is that social determinants of health, environmental conditions and genetic factors work together to influence the risk of many complex illnesses. That paradigm can also explain the environmental and ecological determinants of health as factors that underlie the (un)healthy ecosystems on which communities rely. We suggest that The Ecological Genome Project is an aspirational opportunity to explore connections between the human genome and nature. We propose consolidating a view of Ecogenomics to provide a blueprint to respond to the environmental challenges that societies face. This can only be achieved by interdisciplinary engagement between genomics and the broad field of ecology and related practice of conservation. In this respect, the One Health approach is a model for environmental orientated work. The idea of Ecogenomics-a term that has been used to relate to a scientific field of ecological genomics-becomes the conceptual study of genomes within the social and natural environment.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The HUGO Committee on Ethics, Law and Society (CELS) recommends that an interdisciplinary One Health approach should be adopted in genomic sciences to promote ethical environmentalism. This perspective has been reviewed and endorsed by the HUGO CELS and the HUGO Executive Board.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38111041
doi: 10.1186/s40246-023-00560-x
pii: 10.1186/s40246-023-00560-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
115Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Environmental Programme.
Feder M, Mitchell-Olds T. Evolutionary and ecological functional genomics. Nat Rev Genet. 2003;4:649–55.
doi: 10.1038/nrg1128
Brewer G. Annotation: human ecology, an expanding role for the human geneticist. Am J Hum Genet. 1971;23:92–4.
pubmed: 5581986
pmcid: 1706643
Whitham T, Bailey J, Schweitzer J, et al. A framework for community and ecosystem genetics: from genes to ecosystems. Nat Rev Genet. 2006;7:510–23.
doi: 10.1038/nrg1877
pubmed: 16778835
Landecker H. Food as exposure: nutritional epigenetics and the new metabolism. BioSocieties. 2011;6:167–94.
doi: 10.1057/biosoc.2011.1
pubmed: 23227106
pmcid: 3500842
Boardman J, Daw J, Freese J. Defining the environment in gene-environment research: lessons from social epidemiology. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(S1):S64–72.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301355
pubmed: 23927514
pmcid: 3786759
Dauphin B, Rellstab C, Wüest R, et al. Re-thinking the environment in landscape genomics. Trends Ecol Evol. 2023;38:261–74.
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2022.10.010
pubmed: 36402651
Capps B. One Health Ethics. Bioethics. 2022;36:348–55.
doi: 10.1111/bioe.12984
pubmed: 34897757
One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP), et al. One Health: a new definition for a sustainable and healthy future. PLOS Pathogens. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1010537 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1010537
Wild C. Complementing the genome with an “Exposome”: the outstanding challenge of environmental exposure measurement in molecular epidemiology. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2005;14:1847–50.
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0456
Vitorino J, Costa P. After a century of research into environmental mutagens and carcinogens, Where Do We Stand ? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(2):1040. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021040 .
doi: 10.3390/ijerph20021040
pubmed: 36673796
pmcid: 9859577
O’Malley M. Philosophy of microbiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139162524
Knoppers B, et al. HUGO urges genetic benefit-sharing. Commun Genet. 2000;3:88–92.
Jennings L, Anderson T, Martinez A, et al. Applying the ‘CARE principles for indigenous data governance’ to ecology and biodiversity research. Nat Ecol Evol. 2023;7:1547–51.
doi: 10.1038/s41559-023-02161-2
pubmed: 37558804
Capps B, Chadwick R, Joly Y, et al. Statement on bioinformatics and capturing the benefits of genome sequencing for society. Hum Genomics. 2019;13:24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40246-019-0208-4 .
doi: 10.1186/s40246-019-0208-4
pubmed: 31142362
pmcid: 6542037
Capps B, Joly Y, Mulvihill J, Lee WB, HUGO Committee on Ethics, Law and Society, and the HUGO Council. The Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) and the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic. Hum Genomics. 2021;15:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40246-021-00310-x
Bresalier M, Cassidy A, Woods A, et al. One Health in history. In: Zinsstag J, et al., editors. One Health: the theory and practice of integrated health approaches. 2nd ed. Wallingford: CAB International; 2020. p. 1–14.
Horton R, Lo S. Planetary Health: a new science for exceptional action. Lancet. 2015;386(10007):1921–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61038-8 .
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61038-8
pubmed: 26188746
Capps B, Lederman Z. One Health and paradigms of public biobanking. J Med Ethics. 2015;41:258–62.
doi: 10.1136/medethics-2013-101828
pubmed: 24570395
Crutzen P, Stoermer, E. 2000. The Anthropocene. Global Change Newsletter 41. 17–18.
Lenton T, Latour B. Gaia 2.0. Science. 2018;361:1066–8.
doi: 10.1126/science.aau0427
pubmed: 30213897
Capps B, Lederman Z. Responding to a public health objection to vaccinating great apes. J Agric Environ Ethics. 2016;29(5):883–95.
doi: 10.1007/s10806-016-9633-8
Ostrom E. A diagnostic approach going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2007;104:15181–7.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702288104
pubmed: 17881578
pmcid: 2000497
Landecker H, Panofsky A. From social structure to gene regulation, and back: a critical introduction to environmental epigenetics for sociology. Annu Rev Sociol. 2013;39:333–57.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145707
Hull S, Brody L, Sterling R. Getting it right: how public engagement might (and might not) help us determine what is equitable in genomics and precision medicine. Am J Bioethics. 2023;23:5–8.
doi: 10.1080/15265161.2023.2215154
Zeberg H, Pääbo S. The major genetic risk factor for severe COVID-19 is inherited from neanderthals. Nature. 2020;587:610–2.
doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2818-3
pubmed: 32998156
Jonas O, Seifman R. Do we need a Global Virome Project? Lancet Global Health. 2019;7:e1314–6.
doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30335-3
pubmed: 31537354
Lewin HA, Robinson GE, Kress WJ, et al. Earth BioGenome Project: sequencing life for the future of life. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115:4325–33.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1720115115
pubmed: 29686065
pmcid: 5924910
Moreno P, Capps B, et al. Open-science precision medicine in Canada: points to consider. FACETS. 2019;4(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2018-0034 .
doi: 10.1139/facets-2018-0034
Dolan D, Lee S, Cho M. Three decades of ethical, legal, and social implications research: looking back to chart a path forward. Cell Genomics. 2022;2(7):100150.
doi: 10.1016/j.xgen.2022.100150
pubmed: 35935917
pmcid: 9352173
Chadwick R. Gen-ethics and the posthumanities. In: Sands D, editor. Bioethics and the Posthumanities. London: Routledge; 2022.
Capps B. Where does open science lead us during a pandemic? A public good argument to prioritise rights in the open commons. Cambr Q Healthcare Ethics. 2021;30:1–14.
Sulston J, Ferry G. The common thread: a story of science, politics, ethics, and the human genome. Washington: Joseph Henry Press; 2002.