ABGC Spotlight: Laura Hercher, Natalie Weissberger Paul National Achievement Award Winner
On Williams’ nomination, Hercher received the 2024 National Society of Genetic Counselors’ (NSGC) 2024 Natalie Weissberger Paul National Achievement Award, the association’s most prestigious award. As made clear by Williams’ eloquent write-up, Hercher has made a lasting impression on the genetic counseling profession, and on its perception by the public. Her nominator explained: “She aims to correct the mass media’s mischaracterization of genetics and genetic counselors, a Sisyphean role that takes the entire profession’s involvement.”
Williams shared how influential NSGC has been on her personal career as well: “In all my years as a member of NSGC, no other member or leader has been more influential in my decision to step up, to share the precious hours of my day, to take a stance on a controversial topic or to branch out and take a career risk than the iconic Laura Hercher.”
In this spotlight, Hercher shares in her own words her career highlights and passion for the profession.
ABGC: What does it mean to you to receive this award?
LH: Getting an award that comes from your peers always means the most. That’s a cliche, but it is true. Genetic counselors have a pretty unique point of view — unique insight into the lived experience of those wrestling with genetic disease or susceptibility — and I have a high opinion of the thoughtfulness and intensity with which members of this profession look out for their patients. I try to represent that genetic counselor’s voice in my work, and if my peers see their own values and concerns expressed there, if they feel that I speak for them, I could not be prouder.
ABGC: Can you describe a few of your accomplishments that led to receiving this award?
LH: Since I began working as a genetic counselor, my main focus has been to examine the way genetic information impacts the lives of individuals and of society more broadly. I have worked within the field, as a volunteer for NSGC, on the Ethics Advisory Board and the Public Policy Committee (when those were things), and also as a faculty member at the Sarah Lawrence College genetic counseling program, where I have been teaching an ELSI course for almost 20 years. But I’ve also had the chance to represent what I hope is a genetic counselor’s point of view in other spaces — to work with legal scholars and bioethicists, and more broadly through work in science writing and science commentary.
ABGC: As a professor, ethics is a special focus of yours. What is it that makes you passionate about this important element of the profession?
LH: If you think about it, the entire field of clinical genetics is one big social experiment playing out in real time, with enormous consequences. Like the Internet itself, genomic medicine has the power to do both great good and great harm. The science is fascinating, the technology is cool and the impact on people’s lives is deep and hard to predict. Ethics isn’t a hypothetical exercise for a genetic counselor. Ethical dilemmas are embedded into every aspect of practice, and every GC has to wrestle with that. It’s a little exhausting but so much fun.
ABGC: Can you describe your current role? What do you enjoy most about this position?
LH: My job at Sarah Lawrence has three seemingly discrete parts, but they actually all fit together. I run the research program — my main job there is to recruit or develop ideas for research projects. I also teach classes in ethics and DTC genetic testing, and I run a class we call MAD — Monday Afternoon Discussions — where we talk about genetics in the news. All of these are ways of looking at new developments in the field. Relatedly, what I enjoy most about my job is that it requires me to learn something new every day, which is the greatest gift in the world always but especially when you are over 60 (which I might be, not telling).
ABGC: Can you share about a time you have been challenged in your career? How did you overcome it?
LH: The biggest challenge I have experienced in my career — this is probably not what you meant, but it is absolutely the biggest challenge I have experienced — is trying to stay optimistic in the face of a pretty depressing moment in time. The rise of blood-and-soil nativism rooted in ignorant and hateful views about genetics, the ongoing attack on personal liberties, the cynical manipulation of skepticism to create a broad distrust in all expertise in order to fuel an us-versus-them dynamic with no regard for how much damage is done… ugh, the list is endless. But you have to believe you can make the world a better place to keep trying. As the philosopher Antonio Gramsci said, ‘pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will.’ You can’t blind yourself to what you see, but you can’t let it crush you. This isn’t a challenge you can overcome, only a challenge you can meet, day after day.
ABGC: You are widely published, including as a book author and in the Scientific American. Can you point to a publication you are particularly proud of?
LH: In the prognostication department, I’m pretty proud of a Scientific American piece about direct-to-consumer genetic testing written in 2007, before 23andMe et al. existed. And I wrote articles in the Nation (“Will Genomic Medicine Make the World Less Fair?”) and the MIT Technology Review (Designer babies aren’t futuristic. They’re already here.”) that broadly outline the concerns I have about reproductive genetics in a world of unequal access to care, which I consider the defining work of my career. But I think I am proudest of the work I have done looking at genetic counseling in the post-Dobbs world, and of playing even a tiny role in bringing the attention to the damage done by laws restricting abortion care, because I believe that this attention is essential to the fight for our personal liberties and to just and equitable care for all pregnant persons.