Cornel Els Dequeker Simon Dyson Charlotte Eddy Jon Emery Sultana M.H. Faradz Philip Giampietro Piero Giordano Roberto Giugliani Anna Gluba Leslie J. Greenberg Lidewij Henneman Shirley Hodgson Jürgen Horst Claude Houdayer Wendy Koster Amanda Trichostatin A research buy Krause Michael

Krawczak Ulf Kristoffersson Nina Larsson Patrick Linsel-Nitschke E.C. Mariman Sarabjit Mastana Carole McKeown Sylvia Ann Metcalfe Barend Middelkoop Anna Ku-0059436 purchase Middleton Konstantin Miller Bernadette Modell Irmgard Nippert Peter R. Nippert Håkan Olsson Nicholas Pachter Christine Patch Victor Penchaszadeh Martin Richards Joerg Schmidtke Udo Seedorf Jorge Sequeiros Maria Soller Leo P. ten Kate Ron Trent Xiangmin Xu Ron Zimmern”
“In his letter, Dr Zimmern seeks to dispel the notion that community genetics is unique and different from public health genomics, Selleck Fedratinib and he argues instead that both fields are “in essence one single discipline”. Let me, first of all, clarify that a comparison of both fields was not the primary aim of my commentary. My commentary is first of all based on a detailed study of the contents of the former journal

Community Genetics. The aim of this study was a deeper understanding of the way in which the proponents of this field have defined their ambitions and agenda; however, the years in which the volumes of Community Genetics were published was also the time in which public health genomics began to emerge as a new field. So, I also became interested in attempts

isometheptene of the proponents of community genetics to define the “uniqueness” of their own endeavour “in the light of” public health genomics. In doing so, I further added my own reflections on this new and emerging field. As I have observed in my commentary, community genetics and public health genomics are moving from different starting points but nevertheless are heading, in several respects, to a similar approach. Indeed, given my own observations on this point, I can agree with most of what Dr. Zimmern has to say about the close relation between the two fields; however, even though both fields have many elements in common, they do not simply coincide in terms of their agenda and ambitions. This also becomes clear from Dr. Zimmern’s own perception of community genetics as a “subset” of public health genomics. We find, in one of the editorials in the journal Community Genetics, a similar distinction in terms of the extension of both fields. Ironically, in this case, ten Kate conversely defines public health genomics as a nuclear family “within the extended family of community genetics” (ten Kate 2000). More important of course than these different and conflicting demarcations, are the different starting points from which both fields are approaching each other. The different roots of community genetics and public health genomics remain of crucial importance for our understanding of the particular focus defining each field.