Social, Ethical and Policy Implications of Genomic Tools

In this episode, our previous guest Dr. Daphne Martschenko returns with her co-author Dr. Sam Trejo to discuss their new book What We Inherit: How New Technologies and Old Myths Are Shaping Our Genomic Future.

Dr. Martschenko is an Assistant Professor at the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, where she studies how to promote ethical and socially responsible conduct in human genetics and engages the public around controversial science. Dr. Trejo is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Princeton University whose work examines how social and biological factors jointly influence human development, with a focus on educational and health inequality.

Their collaboration began in graduate school, where they approached genomic research from different intellectual traditions. Dr. Trejo, trained at Stanford, became involved with researchers studying polygenic scores, which are genetic indices linked to social and behavioral outcomes. A controversial talk and an unfortunate reply‑all email situation sparked debate about whether this work risked echoing eugenic ideas. His advisor encouraged him to connect with Dr. Martschenko.

Dr. Martschenko, who earned her PhD at Cambridge, was studying how genomic scientists understood their motivations, responsibilities, and the risks of their work. More skeptical of the field’s claims and concerned about premature industry applications, she, like Dr. Trejo, was frustrated by polarized academic debates in which opposing sides rarely engaged productively. Their shared desire for more constructive dialogue shaped their collaboration and ultimately their book. In this work, they discovered more common ground than expected. Although disagreements remained, that didn’t hinder their ability to think together about regulatory frameworks that should be in place.

They highlight two myths that distort public understanding of genomics:

• The Destiny Myth—the belief that genes unilaterally determine life outcomes, historically used to justify harms such as involuntary sterilization.

• The Race Myth—the false idea that humanity is divided into discrete biological races whose genetic differences explain behavioral or social outcomes, a misconception that has fueled discriminatory policies and continues to underlie white supremacist ideologies.

Their work aims to help the public interpret genomic data and understand both its promise and limits. They note that polygenic scores remain a “black box”: even when predictive in certain contexts, their biological pathways are unclear and may operate differently across environments. Their remaining differences center on how scientific advances might counter—or inadvertently reinforce—social harms, and where scientific effort should be focused to meaningfully reduce health disparities.

Find their book here: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691237756/what-we-inherit?srsltid=AfmBOoppBsKJ5iKykfO2MzqGseQw_3EF028_8tMTrAB9G0trgMdqIUSe

Other joint publications: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35047864/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37695009/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34493865/