WHAT IS MISSING IN THE MEDICAL RESEARCH

The problem with medical science is that it lacks something. Something that indicates that some ailments are not only being completely ignored, but also that it is more difficult to identify the causes of various diseases and efficient ways to cure them. It turns out that you might be the thing it's missing, but I'll get to that in a moment.

Since initially, a tale. Or, to be more precise, 8 billion stories. Our DNA is, in fact, the instruction handbook for our bodies. However, it's also a history book that chronicles our particular genetic past.

When humans first appeared in Africa about 300,000 years ago, all of our stories began.

A few hundred thousand years later, according to some genetic tales, the group set off for Europe, East Asia, or the Americas.

Some genetic fiction describes advancing empires.

Some are brought on by the mere act of settling down, rearing cattle, and consuming their milk. Others are brought on by the diseases humans evolved to avoid.

Although everyone of our genetic histories is unique, they may not be as diverse as you might anticipate.

99.9% of our DNA is shared amongst each other.

Despite the 99.9% similarity in our tales, the 0.1% variance is tremendously significant.

We have the ability to create better, universally effective medicines for diseases in that tiny gap between our genetic narratives.

However, none of those tales are now being read by medical science.

To better understand, allow me to describe how scientists determine the origins of illnesses and create, evaluate, and test new medical interventions.

Researchers track out numerous cases of a certain disease and examine the genetic histories of those individuals to determine its causes.

They search for little differences—differently spelled tidbits of their DNA stories—that they share.

If they do, they experiment with a variety of approaches to mitigate their effects.

And if it reveals something that appears promising, a clinical study is subsequently conducted to determine whether it actually is.

A limited number of volunteers test the treatment in the first phase.

Well, usually only half of them benefit; the other half receives a placebo that has no effect.

The medication can go to the following phase of the clinical trial if there are no significant side effects at the target dose.

Phase two, this time with a larger number of volunteers who are all suffering from the illness the researchers are hoping the medication can cure.

Phase three involves even more participants trying the medicine for a longer period of time if it seems to be working.

After all of this, the new treatment is only then examined and, ideally, approved for use by the broader public.

However, there is a drawback to it.

The ethnicity of a large number of people was recently used to determine the origins of numerous diseases.

Here is how that contrasts with the global population's ethnic diversity.

Find the distinction?

The genetic histories that scientists are looking through are skewed substantially in favor of those with European ancestry.

Therefore, if you're looking for disease-causing DNA to target new drugs against and reading primarily the accounts of people of European descent, you risk completely missing important details in the accounts of other diverse groups that, for example, describe a changed risk of disease or even shed light on how a disease occurs. For instance, if we had just looked at the histories of people of European heritage, scientists might not have discovered the mutation that results in sickle cell disease.

The problem is that there are still other things that medical science lacks.

All potential users must be included in the testing of novel medications and medical equipment.

Again, something can be missed if the genetic stories at issue don't encompass the range of tales in our global library.

Consider the drug Warfarin, which is intended to prevent blood clots.

The majority of East Asian individuals require a lower dose than certain European individuals to have the same effect, while the majority of African individuals require a higher amount.

This implies that a person's optimal dose may differ depending on their ethnicity.

If participants from a variety of ethnicities aren't included in clinical trials, this kind of crucial information may be overlooked.

So what is the answer?

Well, in theory, it's actually quite straightforward.

We need to include everyone's stories in medical research so that we may create therapies that are more effective for everyone. This includes early research, drug development, and clinical trial phases.

The good news is that this is something that more and more people are considering.

For instance, University College London cancer researchers looking into genetic markers for cancer want to examine tissue samples from a variety of ethnic groups so that the cancer biomarkers they find will be applicable to patients from as many different ethnic groups as feasible.

The bottom conclusion is that medical research must make sure it has the best library it can, one with the greatest variety of genetic stories, so that every person's story—including yours—can be taken into account.

The only way to guarantee that everyone, everywhere can receive the best medical care is to do just that.