# Distinguishing social and medical traits: perspectives of scientists using polygenic scores

## TL;DR

Scientists find it hard to clearly separate medical and social traits when using genetic data, which could affect how genetic research is regulated.

## Contribution

The study reveals scientists' varied and often conflicting views on distinguishing medical from social traits using polygenic scores.

## Key findings

- Scientists interviewed generally agree that distinguishing medical and social traits is ambiguous.
- Researchers use diverse and sometimes conflicting reasoning to define the boundary between medical and social traits.
- The ambiguity in categorization has implications for the regulation and interpretation of polygenic score research.

## Abstract

Polygenic scores (PGS) have been developed for a wide variety of traits, such as cancer, risk tolerance, obesity, asthma, educational attainment, and cardiovascular disease. Prior research shows that the public tends to view the use of genetic information for medical traits more favorably than for social or other non-medical traits, and legal and policy discourse regularly treats medical and social traits as distinct categories. However, distinguishing between social and medical traits can be conceptually and practically challenging. Drawing on 47 semi-structured interviews with researchers who have developed or utilized PGS across a range of traits, this study examines how scientists discussed and conceptualized a dividing line between what is medical and what is social, as well as the perceived necessity of a medical/social divide. Overall, the scientists we interviewed broadly agreed that the line is ambiguous; they did not hold unequivocal views about what constitutes a social versus a medical trait, nor where a clear line might be drawn. Instead, they reasoned through any distinctions between social and medical traits in varied and sometimes conflicting ways, including attempting to draw the line, highlighting the role of social context in drawing the line, questioning the line’s relevance, and pointing to the line’s policy implications. We argue that this ambiguity has significant implications for how PGS research is conducted, interpreted, and regulated, calling for a reexamination of regulatory strategies that rely on this distinction.