Cited by 357Race, Genetics, and SocietyEthics in Clinical ResearchGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

Diversity and inclusion in genomic research: why the uneven progress?

Open access
Bentley, Amy R., Callier, Shawneequa, Rotimi, Charles N.·2017·Journal of Community Genetics

Abstract

Conducting genomic research in diverse populations has led to numerous advances in our understanding of human history, biology, and health disparities, in addition to discoveries of vital clinical significance. Conducting genomic research in diverse populations is also important in ensuring that the genomic revolution does not exacerbate health disparities by facilitating discoveries that will disproportionately benefit well-represented populations. Despite the general agreement on the need for genomic research in diverse populations in terms of equity and scientific progress, genomic research remains largely focused on populations of European descent. In this article, we describe the rationale for conducting genomic research in diverse populations by reviewing examples of advances facilitated by their inclusion. We also explore some of the factors that perpetuate the disproportionate attention on well-represented populations. Finally, we discuss ongoing efforts to ameliorate this continuing bias. Collaborative and intensive efforts at all levels of research, from the funding of studies to the publication of their findings, will be necessary to ensure that genomic research does not conserve historical inequalities or curtail the contribution that genomics could make to the health of all humanity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12687-017-0316-6

Cites

96 of 96 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. NEJMoa054013 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 0b013e31819a8aa6 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bentley, A. R., Callier, S., & Rotimi, C. N.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Rotimi, Charles N.
Venue
Journal of Community Genetics
Published
2017-07-18
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
255-266
ISSN
  • 1868-310X (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-6001
OpenAlex
W2737066923
Cited by
357
References
96
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 76 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
13.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Community Genetics (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (Z01HG200362)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
  • Center for Information Technology
  • NIH Office of the Director
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Race, Genetics, and Society
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
genomic research, population diversity, health disparities, underrepresented groups, research equity, research funding, publication bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review