The Gap Between Knowing & Belonging
- Anushka Banerjee
- 14 hours ago
- 2 min read
Stigma remains a stubborn barrier to mental healthcare, but what happens when we examine stigma within the very field that seeks to understand mental health? Psychiatric genetics occupies a sensitive position, shaped by complex public conversations around heredity, neurodiversity, genetic risk, and the field’s historical entanglement with eugenics. A new study by the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics (ISPG)’s Stigma Special Interest Group (SIG) takes a step towards self-reflection by asking researchers and clinicians in this field how they perceive and experience mental health stigma within their professional community.
The anonymous survey received 122 responses from individuals at various career stages and professional roles. Overall, respondents were optimistic about the potential of psychiatric genetics to challenge stigma: 67% felt their work helps reduce it. In comparison, 90% agreed that researchers should consider the potential impact of stigma when communicating their findings. Nearly half felt that psychiatric genetics itself is subject to public stigma. Importantly, the findings suggest that scientific knowledge does not automatically translate into greater understanding or acceptance.
Researchers with lived experience highlight this tension more clearly. Almost 40% of respondents reported living with a mental health diagnosis, and among this group, decisions about disclosure were often shaped by concerns about judgment, privacy, and potential professional consequences. Workplace stigma was reported within the psychiatric genetics community, including dismissive or stigmatising language and assumptions that people with mental health conditions may be weak, unreliable, or less capable. Nearly one-third of respondents also reported avoiding certain research topics due to stigma-related concerns, suggesting that stigma can influence not only how research is received but also what questions researchers feel comfortable asking.
On a hopeful note, many respondents felt that stigma within the field had reduced over the past decade, citing, in addition to scientific advances, greater openness about mental health, increasing presence of lived-experience voices in research and conferences, and broader societal shifts towards mental health awareness.
Researchers called for clearer and more accessible communication of genetic findings, avoiding deterministic interpretations and emphasising that genetic risk does not equal destiny. They also highlighted the need for creating safe spaces for disclosure of a mental health diagnosis, promoting inclusive practices in mentoring and hiring, and building flexible and supportive academic environments.
Ultimately, the study offers an important reminder to a field intertwined so closely with stigma: knowledge alone cannot dissolve stigma. Reducing it requires conscious attention to language, workplace culture, research practices and whose voices are included in shaping the science.
The featured paper "Mental Health Stigma in Psychiatric Genetics: Insights and Recommendations From the ISPG Member Survey on Stigma" is co-authored by Dr Reeteka Sud, Senior Scientist at CBM-NIMHANS.
