In an era where precision medicine promises to revolutionize healthcare, the foundation of this progress—the data stored in genetic biobanks—remains stubbornly homogenous. For decades, the lack of diversity in genomic studies has limited our understanding of how diseases manifest across different ancestral and social backgrounds. A new study published in Human Genetics and Genomics Advances (HGG Advances), titled "Underrepresented Voices in a Colorado Biobank: Perspectives from Focus Groups on Motivations, Return of Results, and Data Sharing," offers a critical roadmap for rectifying this disparity.
The research, led by early-career scientists Carissa Sherman, PhD, and Betzaida Maldonado, dives deep into the motivations and barriers faced by historically underrepresented populations when engaging with large-scale biomedical research. By prioritizing qualitative insights from Indigenous, Hispanic, and queer participants, the team provides a compelling argument for moving beyond traditional recruitment metrics toward a model of true community partnership.
The Core Challenge: Why Representation Matters
The promise of genomics lies in its ability to tailor medical interventions to an individual’s unique genetic makeup. However, if the reference datasets used to build these tools are skewed toward specific ancestral groups, the resulting diagnostic and therapeutic tools may be ineffective, or even harmful, for others.
"Soon after I noticed the underrepresentation of specific communities in genomics research during the first year of my PhD, I began thinking about barriers and challenges to participation," says Betzaida Maldonado. "I was curious to learn more from the individuals who choose to provide their biospecimen for research. What motivates them, and what can we learn from them so that we can better engage others?"
For Carissa Sherman, a postdoctoral fellow in the Claw Lab at the University of Colorado Anschutz, the work is deeply personal. "Working with individuals from various backgrounds and identities provides greater insight into some of the similar motivators and barriers to participation," she explains. "I was motivated to see how our research efforts could support improvements in the experiences of historically underrepresented populations within biomedical research."
Chronology of the Study: Building Trust Through Connection
The project was not merely a data collection exercise; it was an exercise in relationship-building. Recognizing that trust is the primary currency of medical research, the team adopted a strategy rooted in identity-conscious engagement.
Phase 1: Recruitment and Community Engagement
The researchers purposefully built a diverse team—drawing from Indigenous, Hispanic, and LGBTQ+ backgrounds—to conduct the study. This intentionality paid dividends. Participants reported a sense of immediate comfort and "camaraderie" upon meeting researchers who shared their cultural identities. As Sherman notes, participants often felt an intuitive bond, stating they "could feel it" when they encountered someone with a shared lived experience.
Phase 2: Qualitative Focus Groups
The team conducted focus groups to explore the nuances of why individuals participate in biobanks. They discovered that participants carefully weigh the risks and benefits of sharing genetic material. Rather than being passive donors, participants are active stakeholders who want to know how their data will be used, who will access it, and whether they will ever see the results of the research.
Phase 3: The "Return of Results" Paradigm
A major finding of the study was the overwhelming interest in the "return of results"—the practice of sharing individual genetic findings back with the donor. The researchers proposed an innovative, technology-driven approach to this process. Sherman suggests a digital interface akin to modern food delivery apps, which would allow donors to track their biospecimen’s journey: from collection and analysis to the final integration into their electronic health records.
Supporting Data and Key Insights
The qualitative data gathered by Sherman and Maldonado highlights several critical factors that influence participation:
- Identity as a Catalyst: Participants often viewed their contribution as an act of advocacy. Many expressed that they participated specifically because they felt the current scientific landscape lacked people who looked like them.
- The Transparency Gap: A significant barrier to participation remains the "black box" nature of biobanking. Participants want visibility into where their samples go and what they achieve.
- The Value of Mixed Methods: While quantitative data (numbers, population percentages) provides the "what," this study proves that qualitative research provides the "why." By capturing the narrative of the donor, the team identified specific, actionable improvements for recruitment strategies.
Official Perspectives: The Researchers’ Vision
The implications of this work extend far beyond the Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine. The researchers believe their findings serve as a template for the broader human genetics community.
The Need for Diverse Teams
Sherman emphasizes that institutional change starts with hiring. "I hope this work conveys the importance of creating a diverse, inclusive team, piloting research efforts, and having a way to follow up and empower our participants," she says. She credits her mentor, Dr. Katrina Claw, with helping her navigate the complexities of academia while remaining true to her Diné (Navajo) heritage—a journey that informs her belief in the necessity of cultural humility in science.
The Power of Advocacy
Both researchers stress that the responsibility for change does not lie solely with institutions. "At the citizen level, I hope citizens continue to advocate for themselves and others in biomedical/genetic settings," says Sherman. Maldonado adds that increased "participant beneficence"—the act of prioritizing the wellbeing and interests of the participant—will inherently improve the quality and reach of future research.
Implications for the Future of Genetics
The study concludes with a look at how the landscape is already shifting. Both researchers point to landmark developments in the field that mirror their own commitment to equity and sovereignty.
Indigenous Data Sovereignty
Sherman highlights the recent creation of the first federally funded Tribal data repository, "The Data for Indigenous Implementations, Interventions, and Innovations Tribal Data Repository." This development is a milestone in the protection of Indigenous genetic information, shifting control from large institutions back to the communities themselves.
Interdisciplinary Innovation
Maldonado points to the rapid advancement of forensic genetics, such as the ability to recover nuclear DNA from rootless hairs—a breakthrough led by researchers at UC Santa Cruz. By blending anthropology, computational biology, and forensic science, researchers are solving previously impossible problems. This interdisciplinary mindset is exactly what is required to solve the persistent challenges of biobank representation.
Conclusion: A Call to Action
The work of Carissa Sherman and Betzaida Maldonado serves as a powerful reminder that science is, at its core, a human endeavor. By listening to the voices of the underrepresented, the scientific community can move toward a future that is not only more equitable but also more scientifically robust.
As the researchers continue their careers in the Department of Biomedical Informatics at the University of Colorado Anschutz, their study stands as a beacon for others. It challenges the status quo, demands greater transparency, and insists that the future of genomics must be built with—not just for—the diverse populations it intends to serve. Whether through the implementation of better digital tracking tools or the adoption of more inclusive, identity-conscious research teams, the path forward is clear: to advance human health, we must first ensure that the human experience is fully and fairly represented in our data.
About the Author
