Biobanks¹ have emerged as a significant research tool, gaining support from both the scientific community and regional, national and international research funding agencies. However, developing and maintaining these platforms is expensive. Indeed, in a recent survey of operational personnel representing 456 biobanks, funding shortages concerned 71% of those surveyed and 37% identified ‘funding’ as ‘the biobank's greatest challenge.’² Thus, unsurprisingly, biobanks may seek support from the private sector or philanthropic organizations, which have an interest in sustaining them as research resources.

As genomic science has evolved, so have policy and practice debates about how to describe and evaluate the ways in which genomic information is treated for individuals, institutions, and society. The term genetic exceptionalism, describing the concept that genetic information is special or unique, and specifically different from other kinds of medical information, has been utilized widely, but often counterproductively in these debates. We offer genomic contextualism as a new term to frame the characteristics of genomic science in the debates. Using stasis theory to draw out the important connection between definitional issues and resulting policies, we argue that the framework of genomic contextualism is better suited to evaluating genomics and its policy-relevant features to arrive at more productive discussion and resolve policy debates.

The increase in public representation of the science-based concept “genetics” in the mass media might be expected to have a major impact on public understanding of the concept of “race.” A model of lay understandings of the role of genetics in the contemporary United States is offered based on focus group research, random digit dial surveys, and community based surveys. That model indicates that lay people identify race primarily by physical features, but these identifications are categorized into a variety of groupings that may be regional, national, or linguistic. Although they believe that physical appearance is caused largely by genetics, and therefore that race has a genetic basis, they do not uniformly conclude, however, that all perceived racial characteristics are genetically based. Instead, they vary in the extent to which they attribute differences to cultural, personal, and genetic factors.