biostudies-literatureKuiper JMLOperational Infrastructure Support Program, Victorian State GovernmentKU LeuvenKU Leuven (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)EC | Horizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeHilde Van Esch is a clinical investigator of FWO Vlaanderen.EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020)1387-1392https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC10689481biostudies-literatureUnknown31(12)The implementation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in diagnostic practice has stimulated ongoing debates on how to construct and perform "good" genomic care. Our multi-sited qualitative fieldwork at two large European centres for human genetics (CHGs) revealed tangible ambivalence in beliefs, norms, and actions in the enactment of NGS practices across sites stemming from differing expectations, interests, demands, and tensions. First, ambivalence was present around the boundaries of clinical diagnostic genetic care. The overlap between research and clinical work and diagnostics and screening led to ambivalence around "best" practices and norms concerning whom to offer NGS testing and how far to take testing. Secondly, the clinical value of NGS results, especially VUS and unsolicited fiEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHGDealing with ambivalence in the practice of advanced genetic healthcare: towards an ethical choreography.PMC106894813H180506101057721825903Cornel MCVears DFVan Hoyweghen IKuiper JMLVan Esch HBorry PfalseDealing with ambivalence in the practice of advanced genetic healthcare: towards an ethical choreography.The implementation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in diagnostic practice has stimulated ongoing debates on how to construct and perform "good" genomic care. Our multi-sited qualitative fieldwork at two large European centres for human genetics (CHGs) revealed tangible ambivalence in beliefs, norms, and actions in the enactment of NGS practices across sites stemming from differing expectations, interests, demands, and tensions. First, ambivalence was present around the boundaries of clinical diagnostic genetic care. The overlap between research and clinical work and diagnostics and screening led to ambivalence around "best" practices and norms concerning whom to offer NGS testing and how far to take testing. Secondly, the clinical value of NGS results, especially VUS and unsolicited fi2023-01-01T00:00:00Z2023 Dec2025-04-18T16:52:37.339Z2025-04-07T04:19:50.118ZS-EPMC106894813759217210.1038/s41431-023-01436-3