Subscribe to the BioNews newsletter for free

Login
Advanced Search

Search for
BioNews


Print Page Follow BioNews on Twitter BioNews RSS feed

Like the Progress Educational Trust on Facebook








Report Review: Consumer Genetic Testing

02 April 2012

By Ruth Saunders

Appeared in BioNews 651

Consumer Genetic Testing

By Dr Peter Border and Dr Ana Padilla

Published by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology

Download the report (.pdf 270KB) from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology website

'Consumer Genetic Testing' by Dr Peter Border and Dr Ana Padilla


Last week the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) released a POST Note - a guide for MPs and other parliamentarians on science and technology issues - on consumer genetic testing.

Consumer or direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing services appeared on the market over a decade ago and can be used to test for a range of common and complex diseases, potential drug responses, as well as to investigate ancestry.

The Note covers several key legal, ethical and scientific issues raised by DTC genetic testing for predisposition to disease. It warns of the questionable scientific validity of the tests themselves and the potential for misleading information and marketing schemes online.

It also raises the concern that customers may misunderstand the interpretation of their genetic data, in turn burdening the NHS's already overstretched clinical genetic services with visits from worried DTC users. Furthermore, it notes that there are implications for third parties, such as family members.

The Note highlights the lack of effective regulatory protections governing the provision of DTC genetic tests in the UK, the EU and the USA - important because a large proportion of the DTC market is based in the USA, and UK customers can access them online.

As the tests are mostly 'in-house' or laboratory developed tests they fall into the low-risk category of the EU's In Vitro Diagnostics Directive and equivalent US federal regulation. This excludes them from any pre-market approval that would ensure their clinical utility or validity.

The Note predominantly focuses on the lack of provisions to ensure proper customer consent, the correct interpretation of test results, or the appropriate genetic counselling. However, at the same time, it acknowledges the need to encourage innovation in the market and access to genetic technologies.

While it is a useful and comprehensive overview of the literature and policy recommendations to date, I have some concerns about its approach.

First, it is unclear why the Note singles out genetic testing for diseases or conditions. It states that these tests 'have aroused [the] most interest'. If it is referring to consumer interest this is, perhaps, misleading as it is widely acknowledged that other services such as ancestry testing have proved the most popular.

Second, as one commentator astutely put it: 'The harsh truth [is] that, as it turns out, most genetic risk information just is not that predictive'.

It is therefore illogical to restrict discussion of DTC tests to mirror the concerns, policies and practices involved with the genetic tests provided on the NHS, as these have been vetted for their clinical validity and utility.

There is growing evidence to suggest that medical use isn't the only measure of the value of genetic tests. More people are becoming interested in the tests, and the accompanying online social networking forums, for their purely scientific and recreational nature.

Other studies of consumer perceptions have found that, on that whole, customers understand the limitations of genetic risk estimates provided online. Instead, I think the focus should be on ensuring truth in marketing, and accuracy in genetic information.

Third, the Note suffers from over-generalisation. Like any consumer market there are examples of rogue 'garden shed' genetic testing services which pose a threat to consumer interests, but this overlooks the reputable companies. Take 23andMe, who have over 100,000 customers and have introduced policies and practices to address some of these concerns. These include comprehensive information pages on the diseases and conditions they test for, and the creation of established criteria to ensure consistent and accurate reporting of gene-disease association.

In order for discussion of DTC genetic testing to move forward in a coherent, fair, and productive manner, there needs to be more focus on the consumers' perceptions, company practice and the market itself. We should not restrict our frame of reference to clinical and health-related policies and practices.

 

SOURCES & REFERENCES
23 and Me |
 
Clinical Genetics | 10 November 2011
 
UK Parliament | 15 March 2012
 

RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE BIONEWS ARCHIVE

11 March 2013 - by Matthew Thomas 
Commercial DNA tests claiming to reveal people's ancestors are little better than 'genetic astrology', according to scientists... [Read More]
04 March 2013 - by Reuben Harwood 
If asked to describe Eddie Izzard, your reply may include the words actor, comedian, transvestite and marathon runner. Well, now you can add 'part Neanderthal' to the list... [Read More]
20 August 2012 - by Ruth Saunders 
23andMe, a US-based personal genomics company, has sought regulatory approval from the Food and Drug Administration for seven of its genetic tests.... [Read More]
09 July 2012 - by Dr Megan Allyse 
When US based, direct-to-consumer genetic testing company 23andMe announced last month that it had obtained a patent on a method for determining predisposition to Parkinson's disease, it highlighted, perhaps inadvertently, a growing area of unresolved tension between clinical, commercial and research interests.... [Read More]

03 October 2011 - by Dr Vivienne Raper and Ruth Saunders 
'We are not our genomes'. Lone Frank, the author of 'My Beautiful Genome – Exposing our Genetic Quirks, One Genome at a Time' spoke to BioNews about her latest book, the recent surge in direct-to-consumer genetic tests, the ethical dilemmas they could pose and what we can understand from such tests. As he says, 'genetics is a work in progress'... [Read More]
08 August 2011 - by Dr Rebecca Hill 
'The age of personalised medicine: genes, privacy and discrimination?' was the last in BioCentre's 2010/2011 symposium series 'Revolution, Regulation and Responsibilities', and promised to 'appraise current developments and consider the current legal and regulatory position for their use before taking time to reflect and assess the future impact on society'... [Read More]
06 June 2011 - by Rosemary Paxman 
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests provide an inaccurate prediction of disease risk and offer little benefit to consumers, scientists claim... [Read More]
09 August 2010 - by Chris Chatterton 
The Human Genome Commission (HGC) has published a new ‘Common Framework of Principles’ for direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests on 4 August.... [Read More]

HAVE YOUR SAY
Be the first to have your say.

You need to or  to add comments.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions

 


 

- click here to enquire about using this story.

Printer Friendly Page

Published by the Progress Educational Trust
PET CONFERENCE
COMMERCIALISATION OF LIFE


Lord Robert Winston, Professor of Science and Society at Imperial College London and speaker at the Progress Educational Trust's conference 'The Commercialisation of Life', taking place in central London on Tuesday 2 December

London, 2 December
Click HERE for details

FREE EVENT
GENOMIC MEDICINE NEEDS YOU


'Genomic Medicine Needs You - Do You Need Genomic Medicine?', a FREE public event being organised by the Progress Educational Trust in central Oxford on the evening of Thursday 16 October 2014

Oxford, 16 October
Click HERE for details

Good Fundraising Code

Become a Friend of PET HERE, and give the Progress Educational Trust a regular donation