Maithili Patel offers a thoughtful analysis of the limits of nondirectiveness, often thought to be a cornerstone of genetic counseling practice, in this piece.

“With the advent of new technologies, the increasing complexity of genetic information, and the diversification of the patient population, there may be a growing need for more explicit counseling methods that take into account cultural differences and the nuances of patient decision-making.”

Imagine a crystal ball - mystical gray and silver clouds floating around inside of it. Now, imagine that those clouds could paint you a picture of your future child’s health well into adulthood. If you are concerned about health conditions - perhaps diabetes, heart disease, or cancer - then this new crystal ball could help prevent your child from developing them. What do you do? Do you use that crystal ball?

Genetic counselors, of course, are happy to have these individual conversations and help patients come to their own answers for their own families. That’s what we do. But we also need to continue the social conversation. We have the opportunity and the responsibility to guide informed discussions and debates about the repercussions of technology that could impact generations to come. We need to better understand this crystal ball and how it will impact the future of our health, our families, and our society. And it would be wise to do this before it takes off as just another add-on to a complicated treatment plan.

In this piece, our new Editor, Nikki Alexander, brings together findings from fellow intern Brian Earle's showcase project on The New Eugenics by Judith Daar, with discussions the Advocate Genetics internship had during a watch party of the 1997 film Gattaca and the role genetic counseling has in shaping dialogue and conceptualization about the uses of genetic testing. What seemed to be sci-fi then is a real possibility for a dystopian future if we're not careful. . . (Psssst. . . this one is absolutely still worth a watch even 25 years later!)

The 2022 Professional Status Survey conducted by the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) indicated that 93% of respondents identified as women, 89% identified as straight, and 89% identified as white. The dominance of straight, white women has been the demographic makeup of the field since its conception. What factors have contributed to this maintenance of the status quo, and how can the field begin to address and rectify this lack of diversity?

The GC admissions process can cause anxiety, stress, and uncertainty that can be difficult to understand unless one has been through the process, and can be intimidating to those about to embark on this phase of their journey to genetic counseling. I, along with other Advocate Genetics interns who participated in the 2023 Match, want to be transparent about our experiences in hopes that it can be helpful to prospective applicants as well as a source of validation for previous applicants who experienced similar struggles in their cycle.

Applying to genetic counseling school can be an incredibly daunting task due the competitive admissions process. The competitive nature of the field is likely due to several factors, chief among them being the limited number of programs available, small class sizes, and increasing interest in the field. Considering this, how can applicants stand out from the crowd and improve their chances of matching to a graduate school program?