10.2217/17410541.3.1.9 © 20 The recent report commissioned by the Royal Society, Personalised Medicines: Hopes and Realities, focuses on the current status of pharmacogenetics, one of the major fields on which the concept of personalized medicine hangs much of its hopes. While seeing a major role in genomics for drug discovery and development, the report is much more cautious about the application of pharmacogenetics in the clinic. The clinical possibilities of pharmacogenetics range from the molecular subdivision of common diseases into different diagnostic and therapeutic entities, through to the development of more effective methods of improving the efficacy of drugs, to the reduction in the side effects of drug therapy. It seems likely that progress will be made in the subdivision of common diseases into better defined entities. This is already happening in the cancer field and has started to provide highly specific targets for drugs based on the particular molecular pathology of different forms of cancer. Although progress is likely to be slow, it is quite possible that similar molecular targets will follow the improved definition of different forms of other common diseases, type II diabetes and cardiovascular disease, for example. It is when considering the improvements in efficacy or a reduction in unwanted side effects that the role of pharmacogenetics becomes less certain. It has been known for many years that certain well defined monogenic variants have a highly significant effect on how certain drugs are handled, yet this information is rarely used in the clinic. The reasons for this are difficult to define; the perceived complexity of genetic testing, belief that careful observation of drug response is adequate, and simple ignorance that such polymorphisms exist, may be part of the reason. However, more recently there has been an extensive acquisition of information regarding the molecular basis for genetic variability in drug response yet, to date, none of this information has been examined for its practicability in the clinic and community. The report therefore concluded that it was now vital that each drug polymorphism was tested for its clinical value in large, controlled community studies. However, these will not be easy. The difficulty in defining the phenotype of efficacy or unwanted effects is not easy, the metabolism of many drugs will come under the control of more than one gene, and it will clearly have to be seen to be cost effective to include genetic testing in therapeutic regimes. Also, will genetic testing really be more effective than careful monitoring of response on the part of doctors? However, it is encouraging to hear that several large-scale studies of this type with commonly used drugs such as warfarin are now underway. Should it turn out that genetic testing is both therapeutically effective and cost effective, there will remain some considerable organizational problems before pharmacogenetics becomes established routinely in the clinic. Who will perform the testing, and, even more importantly, who will provide the appropriate information to patients regarding what they are being tested for? A debate with the public, carried out during the preparation of the report, suggested that while patients understood the principles of pharmacogenetics, they were extremely concerned about who would supply them with the appropriate information; clearly a major education program will have to precede any such changes in clinical practice. Further development of this field has very important implications for the education of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other health professionals. Finally, the clinical application of pharmacogenetics raises a number of ethical issues that were discussed in a recent report by the Nuffield Bioethics Council. These will also need to be addressed before pharmacogenetics reaches the clinic. In short, while the report was cautiously optimistic about the development of pharmacogenetics for clinical practice, it emphasized the vital importance of testing each drug in the community on a one-to-one basis with cost–benefit analysis, and emphasized some of the important organizational and educational improvements that would need to be in place before this form of personalized medicine can make a major impact in clinical practice.