EDITORIAL Steele who specialize in, say the TGF-B pathway-asso- hand". Using the term personalized medicine ciated diseases rather than the organs or systems to cover the potential flowing from the post- affected. But such a shift will require a more genomic research world appeals to the gut and complete catalogue of the meaningful molecular the ear, but ultimately misleads. And I suspec phenotypes and their effects than we currently that physicians from Hippocrates to your cur- of medical practice; just the means by which that have not practiced personalized medicine. ave And it won't change the fundamenta rent gP would be appalled to learn that they goal is reached. 4. Finally, plenty of ink has been spilled about the"We have to acknowledge that personalized eful inadequacy of our current healthcare and medicine as a clinical approach is indeed regulatory systems to deal with the new infor nothing new under the sun nation Howing from postgenomic laboratories, and a lot of hand-wringing happens at a growing Yet it is hard to construct some other number of annual personalized medicine meet- terminology that works. Molecular medi- gs about how the current system may slow or cine or genomic medicine are perhaps more even prevent the advent of the new personalized accurate to the real novelty of what is hap medicine. There are undoubtedly some tough pening, but may not be as attention grabbing transitions ahead, but until the new language of Individualized medicine suggests more varia- phenotype is more complete, codified in mean- tion in the human species than evolution would gful ways and incorporated more integrally into actually allow. Thus, I suspect we are stuck, regular medical practice, substantial changes in at least for now, with the term personalized the regulatory or healthcare structures may prove medicine. But at least let us agree that we have ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst: to be clear about the meaning it carries: an is very hard to prepare a new system to handle a evolutionary growth in our medical lexicon of surge of new data that are not yet well-understood disease phenotype and treatment. And we have and a language that has not settled into a com- to acknowledge that personalized medicine as a Before we demand that the em clinical appr ng new unde accommodate us. we need to be sure we know the sun what it is we are asking the system to take on in as concrete a way as possible. Conclusion 'Personalized med as a term is attention So what 's new? grabbing, but may be incorrect. As long as it Despite the curmudgeonly admonitions of refers specifically to our increased molecular Qohelet, there is indeed something new under knowledge of human biology and its application the sun in medicine. But it is not personalized to diagnostics and therapeutics, it is acceptable, medicine per se. Rather, it is our ongoing eking if incomplete. If it is used to denote a change in out through the finer lenses of new postgenomic the fundamental practice of medicine, it is a poor technologies the molecular phenotypes that choice of words. contribute to or even directly cause a range of human diseases. It is exciting stuff, both intel- lectually and in its potential for better medical Financial competing interests disclosure are. However, the food of new data we have The author has no relevant affiliations or fnancial oduced in such a short time is really only a involvement with any organization or entity with afnan trickle compared to what we have yet to gener- cial interest in or fnancial conflict with the subject matter ate before we can speak about a revolution of or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes medicine with any kind of authority beyond employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or ng genomic tea leaves options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or Lewis Thomas is credited with saying that pending, or royalties. the great thing about human language is that No writing assistance was utilized in the Production of it prevents us from sticking to the matter at this manuscript Personali dicine(2009)6(1) future science group4 Personalized Medicine (2009) 6(1) future science group Editorial Steele who specialize in, say the TGF-β pathway-asso￾ciated diseases rather than the organs or systems affected. But such a shift will require a more complete catalogue of the meaningful molecular phenotypes and their effects than we currently have. And it won’t change the fundamental goal of medical practice; just the means by which that goal is reached. Finally, plenty of ink has been spilled about the woeful inadequacy of our current healthcare and regulatory systems to deal with the new infor￾mation flowing from postgenomic laboratories, and a lot of hand-wringing happens at a growing number of annual personalized medicine meet￾ings about how the current system may slow or even prevent the advent of the new personalized medicine. There are undoubtedly some tough transitions ahead, but until the new language of phenotype is more complete, codified in mean￾ingful ways and incorporated more integrally into regular medical practice, substantial changes in the regulatory or healthcare structures may prove ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst: it is very hard to prepare a new system to handle a surge of new data that are not yet well-understood and a language that has not settled into a com￾mon tongue. Before we demand that the system accommodate us, we need to be sure we know what it is we are asking the system to take on in as concrete a way as possible. So what’s new? Despite the curmudgeonly admonitions of Qohelet, there is indeed something new under the sun in medicine. But it is not personalized medicine per se. Rather, it is our ongoing eking out through the finer lenses of new postgenomic technologies the molecular phenotypes that contribute to or even directly cause a range of human diseases. It is exciting stuff, both intel￾lectually and in its potential for better medical care. However, the flood of new data we have produced in such a short time is really only a trickle compared to what we have yet to gener￾ate before we can speak about a revolution of medicine with any kind of authority beyond reading genomic tea leaves. Lewis Thomas is credited with saying that “the great thing about human language is that it prevents us from sticking to the matter at hand”. Using the term personalized medicine to cover the potential flowing from the post￾genomic research world appeals to the gut and the ear, but ultimately misleads. And I suspect that physicians from Hippocrates to your cur￾rent GP would be appalled to learn that they have not practiced personalized medicine. “We have to acknowledge that personalized medicine as a clinical approach is indeed nothing new under the sun.” Yet it is hard to construct some other terminology that works. ‘Molecular medi￾cine’ or ‘genomic medicine’ are perhaps more accurate to the real novelty of what is hap￾pening, but may not be as attention grabbing. ‘Individualized medicine’ suggests more varia￾tion in the human species than evolution would actually allow. Thus, I suspect we are stuck, at least for now, with the term personalized medicine. But at least let us agree that we have to be clear about the meaning it carries: an evolutionary growth in our medical lexicon of disease phenotype and treatment. And we have to acknowledge that personalized medicine as a clinical approach is indeed ‘nothing new under the sun’. Conclusion ‘Personalized medicine’ as a term is attention grabbing, but may be incorrect. As long as it refers specifically to our increased molecular knowledge of human biology and its application to diagnostics and therapeutics, it is acceptable, if incomplete. If it is used to denote a change in the fundamental practice of medicine, it is a poor choice of words. Financial & competing interests disclosure The author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a finan￾cial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties. No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript