There has been a recent resurgence of discourse surrounding changing the name “genetic counselor,” including a debate at the NSGC 42nd Annual Conference, and subsequent posts from community members (Cohen, 2023; McGruder, 2023; Resta, 2023). As a genetic counseling student becoming aware of interpersonal relations and Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice (DEIJ) initiatives within the profession, I can’t help but think there are bigger fish to fry. As we know from other healthcare professions, the material costs of a name change are significant. Take physician assistants, whose possible name change to “physician associates'' is projected to cost their professional organization $22 million (Rau, 2021). Within genetic counseling, this funding, time, and energy could be better utilized to enhance belonging and diversity within the profession (Rau, 2021).
What Are the Costs?
A number of people have already highlighted reasons why renaming “genetic counselor” is not a valuable change for the profession. For one, psychosocial counseling and awareness is a key uniting factor as practice-based settings for genetic counselors continue to expand (Cohen, 2023; Means et al., 2020; Resta, 2023). Changing our title to something like genetic “specialist,” “consultant,” or “practitioner” could exacerbate harmful power dynamics with our patients, in addition to doing little to raise awareness of our skill sets (McGruder, 2023). Importantly, before we invest in this change, we must also consider how such resources might be better utilized toward pressing DEIJ initiatives within the profession.
For example, the material costs that would go toward a name change could be better used to fund graduate scholarships and pre-genetic counseling experiences, such as internships and awareness days. Although most genetic counseling programs present themselves as devoted to DEIJ initiatives, many still do not offer scholarships and experiences specifically for those with underrepresented identities in genetic counseling.
In addition, this funding could be directed towards promoting diversified research initiatives and improved compensation for folks who conduct and participate in this research. A more concerted effort is needed to focus research on the needs of those who are BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, disabled, and hold other marginalized identities. It is crucial to consistently fund and compensate researchers who themselves belong to underrepresented groups (Thomas et al., 2021).
Lastly, it is not uncommon for genetic counselors and students with underrepresented identities to undertake DEIJ-oriented research projects, presentations, and publications to enhance belonging and awareness. Often, these endeavors extend beyond one's official responsibilities or coursework, without additional compensation for the extra time, effort, and mental toll. Changing the name of the profession could introduce confusion and inconsistency for prospective students and patients, jeopardizing the progress made by these individuals. The financial resources used for a name change would be better utilized to compensate individuals for their valuable contributions.
But, Who Are We?
With these initiatives in mind, it is important to question who we are as a profession, regardless of the title that seemingly unites us. As demonstrated by NSGC’s 2023 Professional Status Survey, the Exeter Report, and the graduate admissions match statistics, we have significant work to do as a community to challenge the current homogeneity of identities among genetic counselors (The Exeter Group, 2021; National Matching Services, Inc., 2023; National Society of Genetic Counselors, 2023). I am a white, cisgender, and non-disabled genetic counseling student whose majority of identities are already well-represented in the profession. Given my own positionality, I want to emphasize that a deeper dive into what to call our profession, as well as what DEIJ initiatives should be uplifted in this space, must involve a diversity of perspectives. It is imperative for those of us that are following this career path to question the homogeneity among current genetic counselors and to think about effective avenues for fostering a more diverse community. Rather than focusing on unity at the level of a name, we should spend more time together on what it means to be a “genetic counselor.”
Katherine Anderson (she/her) is a first-year genetic counseling student at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine. Katie’s interests in the development of the genetic counseling profession stem from growing up in a health professional shortage area and her graduate training in a safety-net setting.