This article aims to explore the ethical issues arising from attempts to diversify genomic data and include individuals from underserved groups in studies exploring the relationship between genomics and health. We employed a qualitative synthesis design, combining data from three sources: 1) a rapid review of empirical articles published between 2000 and 2022 with a primary or secondary focus on diversifying genomic data, or the inclusion of underserved groups and ethical issues arising from this, 2) an expert workshop and 3) a narrative review. Using these three sources we found that ethical issues are interconnected across structural factors and research practices. Structural issues include failing to engage with the politics of knowledge production, existing inequities, and their effects on how harms and benefits of genomics are distributed. Issues related to research practices include a lack of reflexivity, exploitative dynamics and the failure to prioritise meaningful co-production. Ethical issues arise from both the structure and the practice of research, which can inhibit researcher and participant opportunities to diversify data in an ethical way. Diverse data are not ethical in and of themselves, and without being attentive to the social, historical and political contexts that shape the lives of potential participants, endeavours to diversify genomic data run the risk of worsening existing inequities. Efforts to construct more representative genomic datasets need to develop ethical approaches that are situated within wider attempts to make the enterprise of genomics more equitable.

Despite advances in cancer genomics and the increased use of genomic medicine, metastatic cancer is still mostly an incurable and fatal disease. With diminishing returns from traditional drug discovery strategies, and high clinical failure rates, more emphasis is being placed on alternative drug discovery platforms, such as ex vivo approaches. Ex vivo approaches aim to embed biological relevance and inter-patient variability at an earlier stage of drug discovery, and to offer more precise treatment stratification for patients. However, these techniques also have a high potential to offer personalised therapies to patients, complementing and enhancing genomic medicine. Although an array of approaches are available to researchers, only a minority of techniques have made it through to direct patient treatment within robust clinical trials. Within this review, we discuss the current challenges to ex vivo approaches within clinical practice and summarise the contemporary literature which has directed patient treatment. Finally, we map out how ex vivo approaches could transition from a small-scale, predominantly research based technology to a robust and validated predictive tool. In future, these pre-clinical approaches may be integrated into clinical cancer pathways to assist in the personalisation of therapy choices and to hopefully improve patient experiences and outcomes.

Stratified medicine has been successfully used in many areas of medicine, perhaps most notably oncology. There is now both a growing evidence base and mounting enthusiasm, supported at a governmental level and across industry, academia and clinical medicine, to apply this approach to neurodegenerative illnesses, including dementia, as these provide the greatest clinical and social challenge of our times. In this article we consider definitions of stratified medicine, look at its application in other medical specialties, review the national context in the UK and consider the current state, future potential and specific considerations of applying stratified medicine to dementia.

This paper discusses an integrated approach to person-centred medicine and its role in the future of mental health care. The origins and current status of this emerging field are revised with special attention to the contributions made from psychiatry and to the implications for psychiatric diagnosis and evaluation of the three pillars of the Person-centred Integrative Diagnosis (PID) model: its conceptual domains (health status, experiences and contributors to ill and good health), the related evaluative procedures, the partnerships needed and the existing links and differences with people-centred care and personalised medicine. In spite of their striking complementarities person-centred medicine and personalised medicine do not yet have substantial bridges built between them. Knowledge transfer and coordination should be established between these two models which will cast medical evaluation and care in the upcoming future.