In the ever-evolving landscape of precision medicine, polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are rapidly gaining attention as powerful tools for predicting an individual’s genetic susceptibility to complex diseases. Unlike single-gene mutations, PRSs aggregate the effects of thousands, even millions, of common genetic variants scattered across the genome, providing a composite metric that reflects an individual’s inherited risk for a particular disease or trait. This innovation offers monumental promise for transforming healthcare—from enabling personalized prevention strategies to tailoring early interventions and improving treatment decisions. Yet, as with any breakthrough in genomic medicine, the integration of PRSs into clinical practice provokes profound questions about the psychological and behavioral ramifications for patients. Recent research published by Sanderson and Inouye in Nature Human Behaviour (2025) dives deep into these concerns, dissecting the evidence and theoretical underpinnings surrounding the mental and behavioral impacts of polygenic risk information.
To appreciate the transformative potential of PRSs, one must first grasp their technical foundation. Polygenic risk scores are derived from genome-wide association studies (GWAS), which scan the genomes of thousands or millions of individuals to identify common DNA variants—single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)—that statistically associate with diseases like coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, breast cancer, and more. Individually, each variant contributes only a minuscule increase or decrease to disease risk. However, when these genetic variants are weighted and summed, they create a risk score reflective of cumulative genetic risk. This continuous measure transcends traditional monogenic models, providing nuanced risk stratification across populations that can detect predispositions overlooked by conventional genetic testing.
The allure of PRSs lies in their ability to guide proactive healthcare decisions. For example, individuals identified as high risk for cardiovascular disease might adopt lifestyle modifications earlier or undergo more frequent clinical screening. This stratified approach affords the opportunity to reduce morbidity and mortality by pivoting from reactive care to preventive strategies. Yet, despite this potential, the clinical translation of PRSs requires careful navigation of the accompanying psychological landscape. Concerns exist that conveying probabilistic risk information could induce anxiety, fatalism, or maladaptive behaviors, which may, paradoxically, undermine the preventive goals these tools espouse.
Sanderson and Inouye systematically examine five major arguments that critics raise against the clinical implementation of PRSs, each revolving around potential harms related to psychological distress or detrimental behavioral responses. One prevailing fear is that communicating genetic risk could foster a sense of genetic determinism—a belief that one’s fate is sealed by their DNA—leading to fatalistic attitudes and disengagement from healthy behaviors. Such reactions would contravene the intent of PRSs as tools for empowerment. However, evidence from behavioral science challenges this assumption. Studies reveal that most individuals interpret genetic risk probabilistically rather than deterministically, especially when communications emphasize modifiable risk factors alongside genetic predisposition. Moreover, some evidence suggests that knowledge of high genetic risk may actually motivate positive behavioral changes, such as increased physical activity or dietary improvements.
Another argument revolves around the psychological burden potentially inflicted by risk disclosure. Receiving information that one carries an elevated genetic risk could spur anxiety or depression, impacting quality of life. Yet the empirical data supporting lasting psychological harm attributable to PRS disclosure remains scant. While transient emotional responses are common, research consistently shows these reactions are moderate and tend to resolve without clinical intervention. In fact, providing individuals with clear context and counseling around PRS results typically mitigates adverse psychological effects. This underscores the importance of integrating genetic counseling and effective communication strategies when delivering PRS information.
Skeptics also raise concern about behavioral complacency among individuals receiving low-risk scores, theorizing that “genetic absolution” might lead to neglect of other risk-reducing behaviors, believing they are invulnerable to disease. The evidence on this front is mixed but leans toward minimal behavioral harm. Many receivers of low-risk information maintain, or even increase, engagement in healthy behaviors, particularly when clinical messages underscore that genetic risk represents only one component of overall risk. This highlights how framing and education are crucial mediators of patients’ behavioral responses to genetic information.
The challenge of health disparities further complicates the clinical use of PRSs, amplifying concerns that deploying these scores without adequate scientific and clinical infrastructure might exacerbate existing inequities. Since most GWAS data derive from populations of European ancestry, PRSs tend to be less predictive and potentially misleading for individuals from underrepresented ancestries. This raises ethical and practical barriers to implementation and may foster mistrust or confusion in these groups if poorly communicated. Addressing this gap requires expanded genomic research diversity, coupled with culturally competent counseling to ensure equitable access and interpretation.
An additional psychological consideration relates to the “right not to know” one’s genetic risk. While some patients seek all available information, others may prefer to avoid risk knowledge that could generate anxiety or interfere with life planning. Incorporating PRSs into care pathways necessitates respecting individual autonomy by offering choice and ensuring informed consent around risk disclosure. The development of decision aids and patient-centered communication tools can facilitate this ethical imperative, balancing benefit with potential harm.
Despite these concerns, Sanderson and Inouye argue that the aggregate evidence to date does not justify wholesale rejection of PRSs based on psychological and behavioral arguments alone. Rather, the clinical community should focus on building robust evidence bases, enhancing communication frameworks, and developing supportive infrastructures to implement PRSs responsibly. Research priorities include understanding long-term psychological outcomes, identifying subgroups more vulnerable to adverse reactions, and optimizing counseling interventions to improve comprehension and health behaviors.
One critical avenue for future inquiry is the real-world effectiveness of PRS-informed interventions. While controlled studies and trials yield promising insights, translation into routine clinical workflows involves complex factors, including clinician training, health system readiness, and patient diversity. Longitudinal studies that track psychological, behavioral, and health outcomes post-PRS disclosure across diverse populations will provide vital clarity on benefits versus harms in pragmatic settings.
Moreover, computational and statistical advances are rapidly refining the accuracy and trans-ancestry portability of PRSs, potentially mitigating some current limitations and disparities. As more ancestrally diverse datasets are incorporated and machine learning methods evolve, PRSs will become more robust and clinically actionable worldwide. This will enhance their utility as equitable tools in personalized medicine rather than confounding factors due to biased discovery cohorts.
Another dimension to consider is how PRSs integrate with other omics, clinical variables, and environmental data to form composite risk models. Such multidimensional risk stratification, combined with digital health platforms and personalized feedback systems, holds promise for fostering sustained behavioral change through tailored messaging and timely intervention. Psychological research into how individuals perceive and respond to integrated risk information will be essential to harness this synergy.
In conclusion, polygenic risk scores represent a cutting-edge frontier in genomic medicine with transformative potential for disease prevention and management. Sanderson and Inouye illuminate a critical discourse that balances cautious optimism with rigorous appraisal of psychological and behavioral implications associated with PRS integration. Their review underscores a prevailing lack of evidence indicating significant harms from PRS deployment in clinical contexts, while highlighting the necessity for thoughtful, evidence-based strategies to optimize communication, equity, and patient autonomy. As genomic data become increasingly democratized, responsibly translating polygenic insights into actionable healthcare tools will depend as much on understanding human behavior as on genomic science itself.
The path forward invites a multidisciplinary collaboration, combining genetics, psychology, ethics, and healthcare delivery science to realize the promise of PRSs without unintended consequences. Through careful research, inclusive clinical frameworks, and patient-centered communication, polygenic risk scores can evolve from theoretical constructs into practical instruments for improving population health—empowering individuals with knowledge to take preventive action while respecting the complexity of psychological and behavioral human responses. It is a scientific and societal endeavor that holds profound implications for the future of personalized medicine.
Subject of Research: Psychological and behavioural considerations in integrating polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for physical disease into clinical practice.
Article Title: Psychological and behavioural considerations for integrating polygenic risk scores for disease into clinical practice.
Article References: Sanderson, S.C., Inouye, M. Psychological and behavioural considerations for integrating polygenic risk scores for disease into clinical practice. Nat Hum Behav (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02200-x
Image Credits: AI Generated
