Response to peer commentaries

Response to peer commentaries

The peer commentaries accompanying our article on military genomics in the December 2014 issue of this journal,1 while generally endorsing our approach, raise important points to which we would like to respond. We agreewith Evans andMoreno,2 Pence,3 andRoberts4 on the need to avoid overstating the current usefulness of genomic science to the military. However, there are well-accepted, clinicall...

Response to peer commentaries: prevention for those who can pay

Genetic testing for medically actionable genetic conditions can potentially limit the incidence and societal burden of disease if asymptomatic individuals can convert knowledge of their risk into preventive ormitigating steps.However, the generally treatmentfocusedUS insurance system complicates reimbursement for preventive interventions. In ‘Prevention for those who can pay’, I examined insura...

Response to commentaries.

Dr Klein‟s assertions about the origins of registers on drug-related death are inaccurate, probably due to misunderstanding some of the fundamental epidemiological indicators of drug misuse, including mortality. Whilst it is true that there were many deaths involving the misuse of opium, typically as laudanum, in the nineteenth century, the need for civil registration of deaths in the UK introd...

Latham’s Response to Commentaries

Response to commentaries.

In most cases, authors feel privileged to receive even one set of careful comments on a research article. To receive so many responses from such a distinguished group of researchers is an extraordinarily rare event. Obviously, those responses are quite varied, expressing a wide range of views on the contribution of the Berkovec, Canner, Gabriel, and Hannan (BCGH) article. In part, the diversity...