Inside AJHG: A Chat with Andy McCallion, Loyal Goff, and Paul Hook

Posted By: Sara Cullinan, PhD, Deputy Director, AJHG

Each month, the editors of The American Journal of Human Genetics interview the authors of a recently published paper. This month, we check in with Andy McCallion (@FunctionalDNA), Loyal Goff (@loyalgoff), and Paul Hook (@paul_hook_HuGen) of Johns Hopkins University to discuss their paper, “Single-cell RNA-seq of mouse dopaminergic neurons informs candidate gene selection for sporadic Parkinson’s disease.”

(L-R) Paul Hook, Andy McCallion, and Loyal Goff

AJHG: What prompted you to start working on this project?

Andy: The challenge presented by endeavoring to connect common variation identified through genome wide association studies (GWAS) to affected genes and ultimately to the mechanistic understanding of disease gives all of us a headache. Where to start?

Although powerful, GWAS are inherently biologically agnostic. Despite the wealth of loci they implicate in disease, GWAS tell us nothing of the cellular context of disease or how variants mediate their effect/s. This, and the significant distances over which regulatory sequences/variants can act, complicates efforts to systematically identify gene candidates. We wanted to ask whether, beginning with an underlying biological insight into a pathologically vulnerable cell population, we could make progress on this challenge.

AJHG: What about this paper/project most excites you?

Andy: Perhaps the most exciting thing is that this work provides a biologically informed framework that systematically prioritizes candidate genes for an entire field, Parkinson’s Disease (PD). We were able to ask what (if anything) makes the transcriptomes of neurons in the substantia nigra unique among central nervous system dopamine neurons. We reasoned that any differences may contribute to their preferential vulnerability of this population in PD. The data we generated facilitated the exploration of gene networks underpinning the identity of all assayed dopamine subpopulations and in turn revealed that networks most associated with PD are active in the nigral population.

Stepwise integration of this data allowed us to establish a rubric, filtering over 1000 potential genes in 49 PD GWAS intervals to approximately 100. The genuine excitement was driven by the fact that the data holds up! Among these candidates are many established familial/syndromic PD genes. Further, we validate the functional requirement of a gene not previously known to be mutated in PD.

AJHG: Thinking about the bigger picture, what implications do you see from this work for the larger human genetics community?

Andy: Our work demonstrates that starting from an informed biological hypothesis of (one) cellular context in which a subset of variation might be expected to mediate their effect, can yield robust, testable hypotheses of the genes modulated in disease. We’re not naïve enough to think this story is complete; we recognize that much more work needs to be done – similarly evaluating other cell populations, conditions, etc. Many others are similarly seeking ways to reveal what cellular contexts are most pertinent to a range of disorders. We see this as a proof of principle whose observations will (hopefully) synergize with those from other groups.

AJHG: What advice do you have for trainees/young scientists?

Andy: That’s a tough one! My advice would not be technical. I frequently joke with my trainees that life is not complicated – we all have only two responsibilities. First, you need to get the best out of yourself – work hard, be curious, invest in the intellectual and technical platform you create for your science, think rigorously and creatively. Second, you need to get the best out of everyone else – be fair, honest, empathetic; share information generously, recognize what you can learn from the experiences of others.

Hold those things in tension and you will reach for your success, want to ensure the success of others, and simultaneously avoid being a jerk­. The field of genetics/genomics has become so multi-disciplinary that throughout your career, you will need to develop many relationships – networks of colleagues. Hold yourself accountable for how you work and how you build and maintain relationships.

AJHG:  And for fun, tell us something about your life outside of the lab.

Andy: Outside of the lab, Paul is an avid cook and enjoys time in the kitchen. Loyal is a talented photographer and musician but currently spends most of his time chasing after his two young children. I spend much of my free time woodworking – both at home and as the carpenter on the restoration of an active second world war Liberty Ship and living museum, working alongside my teenage son. Collectively our labs (Goff and McCallion) enjoy almost anything that involves food, drink, our families, and a great laugh.

Andy McCallion, PhD; Loyal Goff, PhD; and Paul Hook, BS, study neurogenetics at the Johns Hopkins University McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine. Dr. McCallion, an ASHG member since 2001, served on the Society’s Program Committee from 2012-13 and as its Chair in 2014. Dr. Goff and Mr. Hook have been ASHG members since 2015.



Representing ASHG and Genetics at FASEB’s Capitol Hill Day

Posted by: Neil Hanchard, MD, PhD, ASHG Board Member

I don’t consider myself to be particularly ‘political’; however, the last two Presidential budgets have included closing the U.S. Department of Agriculture-funded building that houses my lab and office. This has made me keenly aware that the science we do doesn’t occur in a vacuum. I thus consider myself particularly fortunate to have had the opportunity to participate in FASEB’s Capitol Hill Day (March 8) as a representative of ASHG. This now annual event brings scientists from across FASEB’s 31 experimental biology societies – including ASHG – to the Capitol to lobby for their own science. It’s timed to coincide with annual budget making season and, since it’s been going on longer than any of the more than 50 fellow scientists in the room knew for sure, it’s a central piece of FASEB’s public policy engagement.

L-R: James Musser, FASEB President-elect; Sharma Prabhakar, AFMR; and Neil Hanchard, ASHG Board Member.

For me, getting up close and personal with the machinations that enable the science engine was a truly fascinating experience. The DC-based staff of FASEB and ASHG essentially do this all the time and, accordingly, were like a well-oiled sequencer. They did an amazing job of prepping first time scientists-come-lobbyists (like myself) – hosting prep sessions well before the event, as well the night before and morning of. Plus, they ensured that everyone was suitably armed with critical talking points for their State representatives and glossy summary pamphlets to go along with them. After a day running around (literally) meeting with State representatives’ aides in the halls and offices of the National’s Capitol, here are my top 5 takeaways:

  1. There is strength (and comfort) in numbers. FASEB represents ~130,000 scientists in the U.S. and around the world – that’s not a trivial number and the powers-that-be know it.
  2. The Capitol is very large. It’s a mind-boggling maze of offices and hallways, with a subway linking the two houses to boot. With multiple 10-15 minute meetings strewn across the “The Hill”, there’s no way we could have done it on our own – the FASEB facilitators, who included our own ASHG staff, knew not only where we were going, but each of the representatives’ voting and stances on science issues as well.
  3. There is an art to the lobby. There’s an etiquette to lobbying, with polite, often unwritten rules of how to deal – the mandatory exchange of business cards (which I forgot – whoops!); the pitch, the pivot (when you’ve lost your audience); the parting promises and closing invitations – a well-rehearsed dance that, performed well, can be the difference between a “yea” and a “nay”.
  4. Everyone wants their piece of the pie. The Lobby dance is performed by umpteen groups this time of year – if there’s a group you can think of, they were probably there. For scientists to get the funding they need to continue doing good science, they should remember that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.”
  5. Science is bipartisan. Somewhat surprisingly for me, the pitch for NIH, NSF, and USDA science was well-received at all of the Texas representatives’ offices we visited, irrespective of party affiliation. I also learned of several unheralded champions for science from both sides of the political aisle.
After a chance hallway meeting with Rep. Al Green, the Texas group sat down with Rep. Green’s staffer to discuss the importance of biomedical research.

All in all, this was a truly enlightening and emboldening experience; honestly, if I can do it, pretty much anyone can, and there’s a strong argument that any and all scientists should – host a representative in your lab, visit your local representative’s office, make the phone call/sign the email – as jaded as I was about the process at the start, it was heartening to know that it can actually make a difference.

Neil Hanchard, MD, PhD, FACMG, serves as Early-Career Member of the ASHG Board of Directors. He is an Assistant Professor and Clinical Geneticist at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, and has been a member of ASHG since 2010.

Networking Session was Great! What’s Next?

Posted By: Rohit Thakur, Marie Sklodowska-Curie research fellow, University of Leeds, United Kingdom

During ASHG 2017, I participated in the Conference to Career program, organized by ASHG in collaboration with The Jackson Laboratory. The program taught various skills such as networking, elevator pitches, informational interviewing, and how to follow up effectively, some of which I highlighted on the MELGEN blog last month. Today, I wanted to focus on the aftermath of networking: The art of following up! Before I start recommending strategies, I wanted to share my experience of how effective follow-up can lead to wonderful opportunities.

Rohit Thakur (left) and colleague Joey Mark Diaz (right), participants in the ASHG/JAX Conference to Career Program (courtesy Mr. Thakur)

During the ASHG meeting, I was intrigued by a talk by Manolis Kellis, PhD, after which I prepared my elevator speech and talked to him about his group’s ongoing research. I was very interested in their machine learning approaches. Dr. Kellis was very kind and put me in touch with his graduate student. After returning from the conference, I followed up with Dr. Kellis, and that led to potential talks of collaboration between our groups. Dr. Kellis also offered to host me for a month-long internship in his group at MIT, which I accepted.

From my limited experience, I can say that effective follow-up is a necessary step towards building a strong network. Here are some recommended strategies.

Write an Email – 24 Hours’ Countdown

Follow up with people after networking by sending a personalized email within the next 24 hours, while the meeting is fresh in their minds. This email should include a thank you note and all the relevant information – articles, programming scripts, and anything else you had agreed to share after the networking session – and express interest in scheduling another meeting.

Connect with Them on Social Media

Social media has made it easy to connect with people from around the world, through platforms like Twitter, LinkedIn, and ResearchGate. You can keep in touch by congratulating them for their recent achievements and recognitions, and wish them on other occasions such as birthdays, and the New Year.

Invite Them to Give a Seminar

If you are fascinated by someone’s work, you can always invite them for a department seminar. As a trainee, you can recommend speaker names to the head of your department suggesting why they should be invited and how it will benefit your department’s research. Not only will this strengthen your relationship with the speaker, but will also help in fostering collaborations between other trainees/researchers and the speaker.

Always Give First and Expect Nothing in Return

Networking is a team sport. You can follow up with people by offering them your help and suggestions in a constructive manner. If following up leads to a successful collaboration, then you should always give equal opportunity in decision making, leadership, responsibilities, and benefits.

L-R: Manolis Kellis, PhD; Mr. Thakur; and Alvin Shi, PhD Candidate at MIT (courtesy Mr. Thakur)

Acknowledgements: My project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 641458. I am highly thankful to my supervisors Jenny Barrett, PhD, Julia Newton-Bishop, MD, MBChB, FMedSci, Jeremie Nsengimana, PhD, and Göran Jönsson, PhD, for their exceptional mentorship and encouragement to expand my horizons. I am thankful to the organizers of the Conference to Career Program for developing networking skills of ASHG trainees and to Dr. Kellis for providing me with a wonderful learning opportunity in his group at MIT.

Rohit Thakur, B. Tech, is a PhD Candidate at the University of Leeds. He has been an ASHG member since 2017.

Inside AJHG: A Chat with Tony Capra and Will Bush

Posted By: Sarah Ratzel, PhD, Science Editor, AJHG

Each month, the editors of The American Journal of Human Genetics interview an author(s) of a recently published paper. This month, we check in with John A. (Tony) Capra and Will Bush, to discuss their paper, “Comprehensive Analysis of Constraint on the Spatial Distribution of Missense Variants in Human Protein Structures.

Tony Capra, PhD, left, and Will Bush, PhD, right

AJHG: What caused you to start working on this project?

Tony: The roots of this project go all the way back to when I was in graduate school. As a graduate student, I studied how quantifying evolutionary patterns in protein sequences and structures between species could help us understand their functions (e.g., Capra et al. 2009). Then, I transitioned to working on the genetics of recent human evolution and didn’t think much about proteins for several years. When I started my own lab, a colleague came to me with a question about the function of a protein-coding variant in a human protein. As lead author Mike Sivley and I mapped the evolutionary conservation of this variant and its 3D neighborhood across species, we realized that it was silly not to include the wealth of information about genetic variation within human populations in these analyses as well. Around the same time, my colleague Will Bush had a similar idea. Once we got together and implemented a pipeline to map a few variants into protein structures, there was nothing (except lots of debugging!) to stop us from doing it comprehensively. More than 4 million variants later, we had this paper.

Will: I have had a long fascination with structural biology, and have focused much of my work on genomic analyses that are informed in some way by the biological context where variation occurs. This project started for me when multiple studies were published using technologies that explicitly target coding variation, which point to protein-level thinking. Around this time, I met Tony with expertise in protein evolution, and this project felt like the perfect way to start a new collaboration.

AJHG: What about this paper most excites you?

Tony: This paper is a great example of how looking across fields can help solve hard problems. Once we had mapped protein-coding variants into 3D structures, we needed to find a way to quantify whether their spatial patterns exhibited evidence of constraint. After several failed attempts, we realized that this problem had a lot in common with questions that field ecologists commonly ask about the distribution of individuals across physical ranges. A bit of reading revealed the Ripley’s K framework for evaluating and comparing spatial distributions of observations. We had to adapt the methodology for our application, but making this connection to a problem in another field provided the foundation for our solution. I like that an approach from ecology helped us to re-establish a strong link between human genetics and structural biology.

Our results also illustrate why data sharing is so important. By putting two big publicly available databases together, we were able to learn something new about how genetic variants are constrained in 3D space. It would not have been possible without the efforts and foresight of the groups that collected and maintain protein structural data (the Protein Data Bank) and genetic variation data (gnoMAD, COSMIC, TCGA, and ClinVar). Thank you to all of them!

Will: Like Tony, I am excited about the potential of modeling genomic data in a totally different way! The field of geospatial analysis has grown dramatically over the last few years, so using Ripley’s K just scratches the surface of the potential approaches that could be applied in this context. Given all the data that is available for research, the idea of data integration has become quite popular, but there are often many methodological hurdles to combining data of different types or from different domains in a coherent way. I’m excited that our work contributes in this area, and I echo Tony’s thanks to all the wonderful resources that provided the data we used in this work.

AJHG: Thinking about the bigger picture, what implications do you see from this work for the larger human genetics community?

Tony: This paper provides a framework that I believe will improve analysis strategies in both human genetics and structural biology. Both fields have seen substantial increases in the amount of data available over the past 15 years, and our work illustrates the potential to extract insight from the integration of patterns of human genetic variation with 3D structures. We have many new ideas about fully leveraging this combined point of view.

I hope that the human genetics community will recognize that structural biology has many powerful tools that can help us with variant interpretation. However, our results demonstrate that getting the full benefit of the structural perspective requires considering the complex 3D context of variants. This goes beyond the basic structural information, like secondary structure, that is often included in variant pathogenicity predictors.

We also think that we human geneticists have a lot to teach structural biologists, especially about the flexibility and dynamics of their structures. But that’s a topic for another paper!

Will: Beyond our key findings, I hope that this work will inspire other ways to think of the genome in 3D! Chromatin conformation studies are now producing spatial maps of DNA within the nucleus, and we know that these patterns influence gene expression.  Long non-coding RNAs fold into complex forms to achieve their functions – many possibilities exist!

AJHG: What advice do you have for trainees/young scientists?

Tony: Talk to diverse scientists (and non-scientists). This will help you make unexpected connections between fields. Much of the motivation for this project came out of the fact that my office happens to be on the same floor as the Vanderbilt Center for Structural Biology. Different fields have powerful datasets and methods that have direct relevance to important problems (like variant interpretation). The challenge is finding them and then figuring out how they fit together! It is much easier to be creative when you have a broad knowledge of what is state-of-the-art in different fields.

Will: Keep your work organized and persevere. Mike Sivley is a meticulous note-taker, so it was easy at any given moment to go back to prior results and put everything together. Taking good notes is also a great way to know what questions you are asking, and to push through until you have an answer. With any project, there is a time when multiple setbacks make you question the whole endeavor. Looking back over notes from an entire project is the best way to see how much you’ve learned in the process, and that can be a strong motivator to push forward.

AJHG: And for fun, tell us something about your life outside of the lab.

Tony: I secretly want to be a bartender. I suspect this is because I watched too many re-runs of Cheers when I was young. I also hate getting to work before noon.

Will: I intentionally schedule my meetings with Tony before noon, and I really love a good bourbon, especially from Tony’s bar.

Tony Capra, PhD, Assistant Professor at Vanderbilt University, has been an ASHG member since 2012. Will Bush, Assistant Professor at Case Western Reserve University, has been an ASHG member since 2005 and served on the Society’s Communications Committee from 2012-17.

Help Secure $2 Billion More for NIH!

Posted By: Derek Scholes, ASHG Director of Science Policy, and Jillian Galloway, Science Policy Analyst

Take Action Now

On Monday, the Office of Management and Budget rolled out the President’s budget request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019. Although Congress ultimately determines federal spending, the President’s budget sets the tone for the nation’s domestic and international priorities. The proposed budget for the Department of Health and Human Services (see page 40) suggests $34.8 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). While this represents an increase over the current funding for NIH, most institutes at the NIH funding genetics research would see their funding cut. In response, ASHG President David Nelson issued a statement expressing disappointment and the Society’s enthusiasm for working with congressional leaders to sustain ongoing investments in biomedical research.

U.S. Capitol (Credit: National Park Service)

With the FY 2019 announcement coming from the White House this week, you might assume that Congress has finished its work for funding FY 2018. But you’d be wrong! After several months of debate and delay, and a couple of brief government shutdowns, Congress is finally entering the home stretch. As you may have heard, last Friday Congress passed legislation allowing spending caps on federal programs to increase by $296 billion. The passage of this legislation also established a deadline of March 23 for Congress to determine how much funding to allocate to each federal agency in FY 2018, including for NIH. Therefore, now is the time to contact your members of Congress about why sustained federal funding for human genetics research is so important.

The FY 2018 funding story to date has been complicated, so let’s briefly recap what’s happened so far. Congress was unable to pass legislation to establish FY 2018 funding for federal agencies by the September 30, 2017 deadline established by law. Since then, Congress has been passing a series of Continuing Resolutions, or CRs, to allow the government to continue to function. These have been necessary because Congress has been unable to reach agreement on overall levels of funding in FY 2018 and what the funding of each agency should be. The passage of last week’s budget agreement between Republicans and Democrats marks a significant hurdle in overcoming this impasse.

For NIH specifically, there are two alternative proposals on the table for FY 2018. House appropriators have proposed $35.2 billion for the agency, an increase of $1.1 billion over the FY 2017 funding of $34.1 billion. A Senate proposal goes further, supporting a $2 billion increase to $36.1 billion. Over the past several months, ASHG and its partners within the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) have been working with the larger biomedical research community in making the case for a $2 billion increase. These numbers stand in stark contrast to the Administration’s proposal to cut funding for NIH by an unprecedented $7 billion cut to $26.9 billion.

To secure the $2 billion increase for NIH, your Senators and Representatives need to hear from you now! Please go to our Advocacy Center to send a personal appeal to your elected representatives about the impact of federal appropriations on your research and/or institution, urging them to support a $2 billion increase for NIH. Your story matters: Emphasizing the important role federal funding makes to your genetics work is imperative for making the case, more generally, for scientific discovery as a national priority. Take action today and make sure your voice is heard on Capitol Hill.

For more information on ASHG programs in policy and advocacy, visit the Policy & Advocacy page.

Judging DNA Day Essay Submissions: A Look Inside the Process

Posted by: Dennis Drayna, PhD, NIDCD, National Institutes of Health

Dennis Drayna, PhD, NIDCD (photo courtesy Dr. Drayna)

I’ve served as a judge for the DNA Day Essay Contest for a number of years now. Every year, I look forward to seeing the efforts of high school students across the world who are grappling with an interesting problem in contemporary human genetics.

This year’s essay question asks students to argue if consumers should or should not have direct access to predictive genetic testing. The results of their efforts vary, of course, but I never cease to be amazed at the level of sophistication displayed by many of them. If you have concerns about society drifting toward less trust of scientific knowledge, you’ll find many of the essays reassuring. All of the entrants’ efforts bolster the view that evidence-based critical thinking is alive and well among today’s motivated and ambitious young people, some of whom will constitute the future generation of our Society’s leaders.

One of the biggest changes I’ve noticed is the evolution in the students’ use of online resources. The traditional scholarly style, with ample use of references to relevant papers in the peer-reviewed literature, always represented a very high standard for students of high school age. The best essays always bore evidence of liberal use of PubMed, and they still do. However, Wikipedia provided an easier entry into this process, and as Wikipedia became a richer and more detailed resource, students began to avail themselves of it. Less ambitious efforts then began to show evidence of using simple Google searches, which themselves have become more effective over time. Some of the less stellar efforts now seem to rely on social media as an information source. Here, I find the chance to provide comments or feedback one of the more satisfying aspects of the judging process.

I have always volunteered as a Round 2 judge, and as far as I’m concerned, the less glamorous part of judging is done for us in Round 1, when the lower quality essays are removed before we Round 2 judges see them, so we’re typically distinguishing between fairly good, very good, and outstanding essays. I’ll admit that as a researcher who does very little teaching (and zero grading of exams or essays), judging these essays doesn’t feel much like any of my regular obligations. And, the workload is very manageable (made easier by the rubric), the website is intuitive and easy to navigate, and it’s always satisfying to contribute to the efforts of ASHG.

If you want to give back a little, judging ASHG DNA Day essays is an easy way to do it. And if we can provide a little support for developing the scientific workforce of the future, so much the better.

Dennis Drayna, PhD, is Chief of the Laboratory of Communication Disorders and Chief of the Section on Genetics of Communication Disorders at the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, part of the NIH. A longtime member of ASHG, he has served as a judge of DNA Day essay submissions since 2014.

Interested in judging DNA Day essays this year? Email to sign up.

AJHG Welcomes Its New Editor: Q&A with Bruce Korf

Posted By: Staff

A warm welcome to Bruce R. Korf, MD, PhD, new Editor-in-Chief of The American Journal of Human Genetics (AJHG)! We chatted with Dr. Korf about his vision for the journal, which he also described in an editorial in this month’s AJHG.

Bruce R. Korf, MD, PhD, Editor of AJHG

ASHG: What excites you about human genetics research today?

Bruce: Human genetics encompasses an enormous range of research activity. We are in a golden age of gene discovery, including the identification of genes that underlie rare disorders and revealing genetic contributions to common disorders. From my own perspective as a medical geneticist, it’s exciting that disorders we used to only be able to diagnose are now potentially treatable as we uncover the genetic mechanisms and underlying pathophysiology.

There is also fascinating research into human origins and history, independent of medical implications. As a reader of the Journal I did not previously focus on this type of work, but now as AJHG Editor, I am finding this work to be really interesting – these papers bring together ideas we can all relate to.

ASHG: How do you view AJHG’s role in advancing the field?

Bruce: AJHG is the place for geneticists to showcase their best research. It’s a forum to publish findings of broad interest in genetics, and has long been trusted for its scientific rigor, integrity, and careful review of manuscripts. It’s also a resource for the next generation of geneticists, to both encourage and educate early-career scientists and trainees.

As we learn more about ways to diagnose and increasingly, to treat genetic conditions, the Journal can be involved in publishing papers that demonstrate the clinical utility of these interventions – to show that they actually improve outcomes in a cost-effective way. Findings published in AJHG also help highlight the value of publicly funded research: this important work produces new knowledge that leads to better health care and outcomes.

ASHG: ASHG members receive a free subscription to AJHG and are exempt from publishing fees. What other benefits does AJHG offer members?

Bruce: When you’re reading AJHG, you’re looking at the final product of an intense team process. Our staff and editorial board share a strong sense that the papers should represent as carefully vetted a story as possible, which happens at every step from submission to review to acceptance and editing of manuscripts. AJHG and Cell Press put in a lot of effort to ensure reliability of the findings we publish.

The Journal can also serve as an educational forum, for example to help trainees understand the background of why and how a study was put together.

As AJHG is the Society’s journal, we would welcome members’ advice and suggestions on what we can do better, do more of, etc.

ASHG: Are there new areas of emphasis where you’d like to see more submissions?

Bruce: Genetics has advanced tremendously in recent years, and conditions that we could previously only identify can now be treated. I would love to see more submissions on treatment, from preclinical testing to even reporting of clinical trials.

Cancer genetics is another area of interest. Historically, many cancer papers published in AJHG have emphasized germline and Mendelian changes associated with cancer risk. I would like to see more submissions on somatic cancer genetics in addition to work on inherited predisposition to cancer.

ASHG: You’ve also expressed interest in addressing genetics questions that affect society more broadly. Tell us about that.

Bruce: Advances in genetics are bringing up ELSI-related questions, such as how to responsibly use genetic information and how to protect genetic privacy. We look to ASHG to serve as a voice of reason and thoughtful analysis, weighing in on important issues of the day through Society statements. Beyond those statements, I would like to see more Commentaries from individuals in the genetics community, which provide a venue to share personal opinions and generate thoughtful discussion.