Am. J. Hum. Genet. 46:1221, 1990
EDITORIAL Education Section to Continue! Carl A. Huether Editor, Human Genetics Education Section
_ HUMAN GENETICS
KEDUCATION Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati
This, the tenth issue of the Human Genetics Education section (HGES), marks an important milestone in what is now more likely to be its long history. The HGES was originally approved as an experiment by The American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) Board of Directors in the spring of 1986, its first issue appearing in August 1987. Relative to that experiment, data were recently gathered on the HGES from you, the Journal readership, as part of the society's 1989 membership survey. Seventy-eight percent of those responding felt the HGES was either good or excellent, ranking it similarly to "summaries of ASHG symposia and workshops" and "committee reports,' and even ahead of "publication lag time"! Most important, 83% of respondents felt the HGES should continue to be part of the Journal, which the ASHG Board of Directors ratified with its vote of approval at the November 1989 ASHG meeting. The number of issues will vary from two to four per year, depending upon the amount of quality material available. Our euphoria, however, is tempered by another finding in the survey-i.e., that almost onethird of respondents were either not aware the HGES exists or have not read any of its articles. Never have so many missed so much! The current issue emphasizes for a second time the training of genetic counselors. A prior article by Scott et al. (Am. J. Hum. Genet. 42:191-199, 1988), reviewing the then existing 12 formal programs, has been well Received January 15, 1990. Address for correspondence and reprints of the entire education section: Carl A. Huether, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0006. 1990 by The American Society of Human Genetics. All rights reserved. 0002-9297/90/4606-0025$02.00
received and has been used regularly by genetic counselor aspirants. In the present issue of the HGES the feature article, by Ann Walker and her colleagues, reports on the exciting 2-day meeting where 35 participants directly confronted numerous important issues currently facing professional genetic counselors, and their training programs. A particularly valuable result was delineation of course work content areas and of clinical experiences which should comprise all training programs in genetic counseling. The group also forthrightly considered the looming questions of a doctoral degree in genetic counseling and the use of individuals with "alternative training" to provide certain components of genetic counseling services. Three other contributions constitute this issue of the HGES. In their letter to the editor, Salome Waelsch and Harold Nitowsky describe the long-standing commitment to genetics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and suggest reasons for it. Charles Sing provides a paragon for how book reviews should be written, in his review of Douglas Falconer's latest edition of Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. This powerful and thought-provoking review is not only insightful as to the many strengths and some weaknesses of Falconer's latest contribution, but it is also a strong and positive statement of need for quantitative biology as a greater part of human genetics training programs. To fully grasp what is said may require more than one reading, however. Robert Baumiller also provides us with some heady stuff after reading Darwin without Malthus by Daniel Todes. He forces us to consider the biases and presuppositions we carry as baggage into our teaching and research, and suggests that in the field of genetics we are particularly susceptible.
1221
EDITORIAL Education Section to Continue! Carl A. Huether Editor, Human Genetics Education Section
_ HUMAN GENETICS
KEDUCATION Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati
This, the tenth issue of the Human Genetics Education section (HGES), marks an important milestone in what is now more likely to be its long history. The HGES was originally approved as an experiment by The American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) Board of Directors in the spring of 1986, its first issue appearing in August 1987. Relative to that experiment, data were recently gathered on the HGES from you, the Journal readership, as part of the society's 1989 membership survey. Seventy-eight percent of those responding felt the HGES was either good or excellent, ranking it similarly to "summaries of ASHG symposia and workshops" and "committee reports,' and even ahead of "publication lag time"! Most important, 83% of respondents felt the HGES should continue to be part of the Journal, which the ASHG Board of Directors ratified with its vote of approval at the November 1989 ASHG meeting. The number of issues will vary from two to four per year, depending upon the amount of quality material available. Our euphoria, however, is tempered by another finding in the survey-i.e., that almost onethird of respondents were either not aware the HGES exists or have not read any of its articles. Never have so many missed so much! The current issue emphasizes for a second time the training of genetic counselors. A prior article by Scott et al. (Am. J. Hum. Genet. 42:191-199, 1988), reviewing the then existing 12 formal programs, has been well Received January 15, 1990. Address for correspondence and reprints of the entire education section: Carl A. Huether, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0006. 1990 by The American Society of Human Genetics. All rights reserved. 0002-9297/90/4606-0025$02.00
received and has been used regularly by genetic counselor aspirants. In the present issue of the HGES the feature article, by Ann Walker and her colleagues, reports on the exciting 2-day meeting where 35 participants directly confronted numerous important issues currently facing professional genetic counselors, and their training programs. A particularly valuable result was delineation of course work content areas and of clinical experiences which should comprise all training programs in genetic counseling. The group also forthrightly considered the looming questions of a doctoral degree in genetic counseling and the use of individuals with "alternative training" to provide certain components of genetic counseling services. Three other contributions constitute this issue of the HGES. In their letter to the editor, Salome Waelsch and Harold Nitowsky describe the long-standing commitment to genetics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and suggest reasons for it. Charles Sing provides a paragon for how book reviews should be written, in his review of Douglas Falconer's latest edition of Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. This powerful and thought-provoking review is not only insightful as to the many strengths and some weaknesses of Falconer's latest contribution, but it is also a strong and positive statement of need for quantitative biology as a greater part of human genetics training programs. To fully grasp what is said may require more than one reading, however. Robert Baumiller also provides us with some heady stuff after reading Darwin without Malthus by Daniel Todes. He forces us to consider the biases and presuppositions we carry as baggage into our teaching and research, and suggests that in the field of genetics we are particularly susceptible.
1221
