Page URL:

Report Review: Consumer Genetic Testing

2 April 2012
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.

23andMe Odds Calculator
23 and Me |  22 October 2021
DTC Genetic Testing: pendulum swings and policy paradoxes
Clinical Genetics |  10 November 2011
POST Note Consumer Genetic Testing
UK Parliament |  15 March 2012
14 December 2015 - by Andelka M. Phillips 
There is now a huge range of direct-to-consumer genetic tests on the market, but the public ought to be wary of what exactly they are agreeing to when they sign up for these services...
16 November 2015 - by Lone Hørlyck 
The US Food and Drug Administration has sent warning letters to three gene-testing companies over the marketing and selling of what it claims are direct-to-consumer gene testing products without its approval...
11 March 2013 - by Matthew Thomas 
Commercial DNA tests claiming to reveal people's ancestors are little better than 'genetic astrology', according to scientists...
4 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...
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....
3 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'...
8 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'...
6 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...
9 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....
to add a Comment.

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

Syndicate this story - click here to enquire about using this story.