Genomics Forum
Policy Committee
March 12, 2012
4:00 – 5:00 P.M. EST
Minutes
Present on Call:
Ashley Quackenbush (Braun), University of Michigan
Kathleen Helms, Georgia State University
Chikezie Maduka, University of Maryland Prevention Research Center
Stephen Modell, University of Michigan
For any corrections please contact Ashley BQuackenbush at acbraun@umich.edu
Agenda:
1. Best day and time to hold meetings
2. Pending co-chair vote for Chikezie Maduka
3. Discussion of the “Priorities for Public Health Genomics, 2012-2017” Report and
Feasible Recommendations
4. Discussion of the current Cancer Genomics / Oncogenomics Policy Statement
5. Remaining business
Minutes:
1. Meeting Scheduling
 The meeting was called to order by Dr. Stephen Modell. He started in reverse order
by asking members present - what day fits everyone’s schedule. Attendees did not
indicate any preferred day, so it was agreed that call meetings continue Mondays at
4pm every 1 to 2 months until further notice.
 Dr. Stephen introduced Chikezie Maduka to the group and informed them of
Chikezie’s interest in serving as the Co-Chair of the Policy Committee. Chikezie is in
his second year as a National Community Committee (NCC) officer. He is a member
of the National Community-Based Organization Network (NCBON), an APHA
Community-Based Caucus offshoot, and of the University of Maryland Prevention
Research Center (PRC) Community Advisory Board.
 Ashley pointed out that the By-laws state the Bio of the contestant should be
distributed amongst members for voting. Ashley agreed to distribute
Chikezie’s Bio electronically for members to vote on his candidacy.
2. Priorities Report
 Stephen informed the members of the Committee of their responsibility to review
the recommendations made by CDC’s Office of Public Health Genomics in its final
report of the Stakeholder’s Consultation and meetings held in Bethesda, MD last
year in order to come up with priorities the Committee might want to address. He
also mentioned the fact that there is a set of feasible recommendations students
1





collected from the report, which resulted in a 9-page long document with
preambles.
Developing and implementing research for public health action, especially on the
impact of genetic factors on health, social and environmental interactions – Stephen
saw this as part of the ongoing effort of the Gene-Environment Working Group.
Engaging community in research agendas – Stephen pointed out that this will be
considered by the Policy Committee in the future with regard to Community needs
and views in research, and developing policies for Public Health Genomics. The
needs of racial-ethnic groups should be a part of this area. All present agreed this
priority represented a possible future focus for the Committee.
 Training a competent health literate public (cancer genomics – securing a
health literate public constituency).
Ensuring proper regulation of genomic technologies – develop technologies that are
safe and effective, and helpful to public health efforts. Kathleen noted that different
companies are engaged in commercialization, sometimes with inconsistent policies
and motivations.
Utilizing family health history – this goal was mentioned in the report and is a
general part of public health practice. To what extent should we address this
priority?
 In response to Stephen’s question, Chikezie mentioned that family history is
a very important topic for both family and community members. It can be
promoted in public health programs – State Cancer programs (such as in
Maryland).
The Report mentioned that Cascade screening and Life course screening (page 57 of
the Report) are other areas of interest. Cascade screening should be included in the
report under family history.
 Kathleen acknowledged that it is really important for first and second degree
relatives to be tested, sooner rather than later so dietary and other lifestyle
changes can be made. Cascade screening for Iron overload
(Hemochromatosis) – Iron in the Liver – is a prominent example. The group
decided to return to Cascade screening for further consideration at the next
meeting.
 The question arose as to whether Clementine Fu could help with a literature
search for Cascade screening and family history? Kathleen indicated
Clementine appears to be busy with the Translation Workgroup.
 Stephen wondered whether the topic could be discussed by the Forum
Steering Committee?
Policy Statement
 Heather Honore-Goltz, past Chair of the Policy Statement Committee, has mentioned
ways to find out more on cancer surveillance & screening by the States – What are
Michigan, Oregon, New York, and California doing in these areas? Stephen
developed a search list (attached).
2
1. Nanette Newell (Oregon) – delivered a talk on Cancer Genetic activity in her
state two APHA meetings ago – we should look this up.
2. Michigan linked up with Oregon – Early onset, BRC12, HNPCC – to develop
accurate cancer statistics as funded by the CDC. The Michigan Cancer
Consortium also circulated a newsletter on American Recovery Act and
National Cancer Institute funding to look at Minorities’ cancer components.
3. Oregon Department of Public Health – looked at genetic clinics concerning
Cancer Screening, Breast & Ovarian Cancer MMR genetics testing.
 These states are involved in Cancer Genetics Policy Statement issues. Their activities
should be incorporated into the piece.
Remaining Business
 The Committee decided to put more emphasis on what the Public Health
departments are doing. Surveillance & minority needs should go to the front of the
recommendations.
 Nicole previously mentioned Fecal Colorectal Cancer screening should be added to
the identified list of genetic diagnostic testing, family history, and cascade screening.
Stephen pointed out these modalities can precede direct-to-consumer testing and
education in the makeup of the Statement. Kathleen and Chikezie supported these
suggestions.
 Stephen also asked members to send him any information and suggestions on
money being pumped into minority needs in genetics/genomics.
3