Page URL:

Podcast Review: Naked Genetics – Testing, testing

6 March 2017
Appeared in BioNews 891

Testing, testing

Naked Genetics podcast

Presented by Dr Kat Arney

It's amazing how a string of four little chemicals can be so controversial. More and more, we hear about the genetics behind everything from education and intelligence to appearances and sexuality, not to mention diseases and our ancestry. This can be a murky and politically charged area, not least because of the so-called alt-right's burgeoning interest in genetics.

Dr Kat Arney's fascinating and wide-ranging Naked Genetics podcast eased us into genetic testing with the less controversial topic of cancer.

Her first guest was Professor Nazneen Rahman, a geneticist at the Institute of Cancer Research who can also belt out a jazz number. She studies how your genome can affect your risk of developing various cancers, particularly ovarian and breast.

Any discussion of risk is liable to make many people feel scared, overwhelmed and bored, all at the same time. It's frankly unnatural to wrap your head around these probabilities – just think about how you react whenever the weather forecast turns out wrong – and it takes a lot of training to get the human brain to think probabilistically.

Beyond a handful of statistics, Professor Rahman avoided numbers in favour of a clear and articulate explanation of the role of genetic testing in cancer. In the UK, we start with people already diagnosed with cancer, then reach out to family members who might also be at risk. Professor Rahman discussed how this approach means that cancer patients can also be given more personalised information about their disease.

Screening the entire population for particular mutations, she explained, is ineffective because of their rarity. Around this point, I felt that they should have mentioned the inherent pros and cons of screening. All tests are inaccurate in two ways: there's a chance the test will say you're sick when you aren't (a false positive) or it will say you're well when you're sick (false negative). Both outcomes are harmful and unavoidable, and this must be taken into account when rolling out any kind of screening programme.

Next up was Dr Tony Gordon, who spoke at the Progress Educational Trust's 'Testing, Testing, 1, 2, 3' debate about pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in September (see BioNews 870). He's the UK laboratory director of Genesis Genetics, which tests for genetic disorders in embryos produced through IVF as well as in fetuses.

Dr Gordon said his company can test embryos from as little as five days after fertilisation (during IVF) by taking cells from the part that will grow into the placenta. This PGS test makes sure embryos have the correct number of chromosomes. PGD, on the other hand, zooms in to look at genes and, by Dr Gordon's count, can test for around 240 heritable conditions.

Inevitably, genetics tends to make things more complicated, not less, in all respects. As Dr Arney said: 'It's not quite as simple as one gene, one fault, one disease.'

Luckily, the odds are against this kind of embryonic testing leading towards a perfect and perfectly homogenous master race, because – as Dr Gordon points out – if you screened for more than one or two conditions, you'd quickly run out of embryos to transfer during IVF.

He also brought up an interesting point when talking about how, with late-onset disorders like Huntington's, they must tread carefully when talking to parents who might not be aware that they have the gene themselves.

The third and final guest was Mike McNamee, professor of sports science at Swansea University, who specialises in ethics. Professor McNamee critiqued the shaky science behind the newest batch of direct-to-consumer genetic testing kits. These kits claim to uncover potential sporting or artistic ability – essentially promising to quantify whether a child would feel more at ease in front of an easel or a pommel horse.

Professor McNamee highlighted a gene called ACTN3 that has been linked to power and speed in athletes, but only to a point as a famous long-jumper does not express this gene. As he rightly mentioned, 'being a world class sprinter requires a million other things', not least 'the motivation, dedication, the commitment' to do it in the first place. (I may be expressing heroic quantities of ACTN3 right now, but the only time you'll see me sprint is when they call last orders at the bar.)

He went on to say that it's 'preposterous' and 'fallacious' to reduce any kind of complicated, specialised activity requiring a mixture of talent, training and luck to a string of DNA. There are always all manner of social, historical and environmental contingencies that influence what we want from our children as well as what they might want for themselves.

This half-hour programme was packed with lots of other interesting titbits that Kat Arney and her guests talked about. I highly recommend giving this podcast your time.

26 February 2018 - by Debbie Kennett 
2017 was the year that personal genetic testing took off in a big way...
22 January 2018 - by Dr Sam Sherratt 
Over the last few years we've seen a welcome explosion in the number of scientific podcasts aiming to spread the gospel about new research that may otherwise miss the attention of the mainstream media. With this in mind, I recently sat down to listen to an episode of Naked Genetics, a weekly podcast covering the 'latest genetics news and breakthroughs from the DNA world'...
18 September 2017 - by Mikey Lebrett 
Genomics may herald a bright future - for those who understand it. But what about those who do not? Dr Kat Arney's new book 'How to Code a Human' is a beautiful example of how complicated genetic topics can be simplified and clarified to make them understandable and enjoyable for the least-scientific of readers....
6 March 2017 - by Emma Laycock 
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has called for a ban on using early prenatal testing to find out the sex or sequence the whole genome of the fetus...
13 February 2017 - by Dr Hannah Somers 
A study has indicated that US doctors may not be recommending genetic testing to a sufficient number of high-risk breast cancer patients...
19 December 2016 - by Isobel Steer 
A study has cast doubts on the reliability of 'liquid biopsies' – blood tests that detect tumour mutations and are increasingly used to guide treatment...
28 November 2016 - by Dr Helen O'Neill 
When it comes to prenatal genetic testing and screening, informed consent is crucial. These seven videos from the US help patients to understand what's involved...
26 September 2016 - by Dr Nicoletta Charolidi 
There was a captivating debate around the emerging genetic choices, legal framework and ethical issues from the use of PGS (pre-implantation genetic screening) and PGD (pre-implantation genetic diagnosis) at this event produced by the Progress Educational Trust (PET)...
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.