Nuffield Council Reviews DTC Genetic Testing

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics recently released the results of a two year study: Medical profiling and online medicine: the ethics of 'personalised healthcare' in a consumer age (2010). The report devotes chapters to six "case studies" (these are not formal case studies, but rather topics for investigation), all are relevant to the ethical development and delivery of predictive medicine. The six case studies address: online health information, online personal health records, online purchasing of pharmaceuticals, telemedicine, personal genetic profiling for disease susceptibility, and direct-to-consumer body imaging.

However, the chapter on direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing, 9. Personal genetic profiling for disease susceptibility, will be of particular interest to readers in the States. Three of the big names in DTC genomics are U.S. companies (Navigenics, 23andMe, and Pathway Genomics) and, given the price tag for services, much of the consumers are in the States as well. In general, the Council cautions that DTC genetic testing lacks a sufficient evidence base for reliable clinical use and that consumers should think carefully about the risks. Nevertheless, the workgroup does not oppose the market for DTC genetic testing, but rather advices companies to provide greater transparency regarding the evidence and the potential harms. On the regulatory front, the report proposes prohibiting the market for tests with no proven clinical utility. See 9.45:

We recommend that responsible authorities pay more attention to whether genetic test providers are making clinical claims for their products, even if implied rather than explicit (such as in their ‘customers’ testimonials’). If so, they should ask for evidence to be supplied. We direct this recommendation to authorities responsible for pre-market review and advertising standards, including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK.

The council also calls for government (UK) websites to publish the risks and limitations of DTC genetics, for restricting pediatric DTC genetic services, and for programs to educate healthcare providers who may need to discuss DTC genetic test results with patients.

In addition to the six "case studies" the report also provides a chapter devoted to ethical values the workgroup identified as well as the process of ethical reasoning it employed. The workgroup the following ethical values to consider:

1. The value of safeguarding private information;

2. The value of individuals being able to pursue their own interests in their own way;

3. The value of efforts by the state to reduce harm;

4. The value of using public resources efficiently and fairly;

5. Sharing risks, protecting the vulnerable: the value of social solidarity.

These values, of course, are often in conflict with each other. Thus, the workgroup employed a practical approach (not to resolve) but to "soften" conflicts, see 3.18:

[T]he approach we follow in this report is not so much to attempt to solve the dilemmas but to propose forms of oversight and voluntary conduct so that society can manage its way around them and reduce the conflict while gaining general assent. This approach means trying to accommodate as many as possible of the different values we have identified without giving one absolute priority over another.

I think this is a pragmatic approach, but (perhaps) too obvious to bear replicating. It might have been more interesting to learn how the workgroup identified the five ethical values it employed.

In addition to its well-considered case studies, and explained ethics practice, the report serves as a valuable review (with an emphasis on the issues in the UK) of the literature on the ethics of personalized and genomic medicine. It can be downloaded at no cost from the Council's website: http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/

Other Predictive Health Ethics News

Tara Parker-Pope. Taking genetic history to the grave. Well (NYT Blog). October 28, 2010.

Rita Rubin. Most doctors are behind the learning curve on genetic tests. USA Today. October 25, 2010.

Laurie Udesky. The ethics of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. The Lancet. October 23, 2010.

Jessica Reaves. Stem Cell Research Skirts Hurdles, but Raises Ethics Issues, Too. The New York Times. October 22, 2010.

Philippa Brice. Loss of UK genetics public bodies confirmed. PHG Foundation News. October 15, 2010.

Experts warn about genetic tests. Reuters. October 12, 2010.

Matt Ridley. The Failed Promise of Genomics. The Wall Street Journal. October 9, 2010.

Amy Harmon. Stem Cells in Court, Scientists Fear for Careers. The New York Times. October 6, 2010.

Josephine Johnston. America’s Stem Cell Mess. The Scientist. October 1, 2010.

Dan Vorhaus. HHS Pulls the Plug on Genetics Advisory Committee. Genomics Law Report. September 23, 2010.

-- J.O.

California Department of Public Health Orders Changes to Berkeley's Genetic Test Program

Last week Berkeley altered its Bring Your Genes to Cal Program to stop the genetic test results from being disseminated back to participating students in response to an order from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). Berkeley will still hold discussions and lectures based on the aggregate information as previously planned. [See our posting on the Bring Your Genes to Cal Program here.]

On August 11, Berkeley and CDPH met to discuss the program’s compliance with the California Business and Professions Code which requires that a physician order clinical laboratory tests. In a statement to CDPH, Berkeley asserted its program should fall under an exemption for labs performing tests as research where the results are not reported to patients as part of a medical or health assessment. Berkeley maintained that these statutory requirements were not applicable to its program because Bring Your Genes to Cal constituted an “educational experiment,” students are not “patients,” and the three specific gene variants tested are not disease related.


Despite these claims, the program would have returned genetic test results back to each student, which should be defined as part of a health assessment because the program directed students to use these results to inform their dietary and nutritional choices as well as make personal health decisions. According to Dean Schissel’s message to students in the informed consent video, these genetic test results would then allow them to take measures to improve their health such as eating more or less of a particular food, or avoiding alcohol if their test results showed an ethanol “allergy.” Schlissel’s assertion stretched the meaning of California’s exemption in denying that this “experiment” constitutes clinical laboratory tests or that this information is medically significant. Arguments over statuory construction closely parallel the current federal regulatory loopholes relating to DTC genetic tests.

As genomeweb observed, the semantic debate between Berkeley and CDPH is strikingly similar to the volleys between CDPH and DTC genetic test companies that occurred back in 2008. In June of 2008, CDPH had responded to consumer complaints and sent out thirteen cease and desist letters to DTC genetic testing companies, asserting that their policies did not comply with licensure requirements set forth in California law. Two of the targeted companies, 23andMe and Navigenics, asserted they offer an “informational service” providing personal genetic information and not “medical testing services,” so they did not need to obtain a license. CDPH agreed and granted licenses to Navigenics and 23andMe in August 2008.

Now, with Congress and the FDA scrutinizing the federal regulatory requirements, CDPH seems to be responding to the current political shift of opinion and the uncertainties related to providing genetic test results without a physician intermediary and oversight of the test's accuracy and validity. Or perhaps CDPH agreed with concerns in the defeated California Assembly Bill 70. This bill would have urged state schools within the California State University and University of California system from requesting students’ DNA for the purpose of genetic testing.

Defeated AB 70 also raised specific privacy concerns stemming from a university collecting students’ DNA samples for genetic testing and retaining students’ coded genetic information. Although Berkeley's program will incinerate students’ DNA samples following testing, it plans to keep students’ genetic information for further study. Data attack in GWAS studies exemplifies the principle that our understanding of data security relating to genetic information is uncertain, and we have continually underestimated the potential for security breaches. Dean Schlissel’s unwavering promises of absolute privacy seems naively optimistic given what we know in this area.

It seems this “teaching study” has given Berkeley and its freshmen more than they could have anticipated. In addition to the campus lectures about genetics and personalized medicine, students have already learned the ethical and legal complexities associated with emerging technology- the varied parties who have a say, the definition debates, and the unpredictability of the resolution.

--Katherine Drabiak-Syed

DTC Tests Face Scrutiny at FDA, by GAO, and Congress

Last week produced a flurry of activity at the FDA and before Congress relating to regulation of field of DTC genetic tests. Here is a summary:

At the FDA:

The FDA sent out additional letters to fourteen more DTC companies, stating that the companies’ respective tests constitute in vitro diagnostic devices subject to FDA regulation. These letters mirror the original letters sent out in June to 23andMe, Navigenics, deCODE Genetics, Knome and Illumina, which we discussed here and here.

On July 19-20, the FDA convened its Public Meeting on the Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests to discuss the history and current regulatory status of LDTs and status of DTC genetic tests. The meeting was divided into four sessions to address:

• patient and clinical considerations;
• clinical laboratory challenges;
• concerns, benefits, and risks of DTC testing; and
• education and outreach so laboratories can comply with regulations and physicians are enabled use the genetic information provided in these tests

GAO Report:

On July 22, the Government Accountability Office released its report Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Tests: Misleading Test Results Are Further Complicated by Deceptive Marketing and Other Questionable Practices and offered it as testimony during the hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce in the House of Representatives.

The GAO posed as consumers and sent DNA samples from five people to four selected companies. It also examined a sample if fifteen companies’ advertising and marketing practices.
This report revealed numerous appalling flaws related to selected DTC test’s accuracy, company follow up with consumers, and consumer privacy protections. The report found the following five problems:

(1) each donor’s factual profile received disease risk predictions that varied across all four companies, indicating that identical DNA can yield contradictory results depending solely on the company it was sent to for analysis;

(2) these risk predictions often conflicted with the donors’ factual illnesses and family medical histories;

(3) none of the companies could provide the donors who submitted fictitious African American and Asian profiles with complete test results for their ethnicity but did not explicitly disclose this limitation prior to purchase;

(4) one company provided donors with reports that showed conflicting predictions for the same DNA and profile, but did not explain how to interpret these different results; and

(5) follow-up consultations offered by three of the companies provided only general information and not the expert advice the companies promised to provide.

Varied risk prediction from each company grossly undermines each company’s claim of superiority and accuracy, weakening the reliability of the test results. For example, a male “consumer,” age 48, received three different results about his risk for hypertension. One company claimed he had a below average risk of developing hypertension, a second company stated his risk was average, and a third company noted his risk was above average. Accordingly, if a real consumer would integrate this information to make lifestyles changes as advocate by one of the companies, he may be incentivized toward undesirable health behaviors based on a mistaken belief of lower risk.

A widely circulated YouTube video documented some companies’ dangerous blurring of risk and diagnosis during follow up with company representatives. Here is one example:

Fictitious consumer: “So if I’m high risk, does that mean I’ll definitely get breast cancer?”

Company representative: “You…you’d be in the high risk of, you know, pretty much getting it.”

The GAO classified this exchange as “horrifying” and “disconcerting.” It leads me to wonder how many real consumers received similar devastating and incorrect information when they attempted to follow up their own test results? How many went to their physicians with these results and remained unconvinced when the physicians attempted to reassure them? In the near future, these companies should brace themselves for the legal backlash that is sure to follow from consumers who experienced such troubling exchanges and may vent their anxiety and frustration in the form of legal complaints alleging negligence and emotional damages.

Before Congress

During the hearing on the Hill, Rep. Griffith echoed this cautious sentiment, suggesting when confronted with alarming genetic risk information, consumers are likely to panic first and ask questions later. The Genomics Law Report provides a summary of the hearing here.

Despite GAO’s conclusion that DTC companies provide results that are “ambiguous and misleading,” Rep. Burgess and Rep. Waxman voiced their disfavor of overly intrusive regulation and advocated for a system that would still allow consumers to access their personal genetic information.

However, the GAO report illustrates precisely why the model for these tests will continue to encounter problems without the guidance of a physician as gatekeeper and interpreter. In another exchange recorded on the YouTube video, a company representative tells one “consumer” he can eventually stop taking his prescription medicine for high cholesterol if he purchases and uses the company’s pricey vitamin supplements. Advice connecting risk to behavior and medication changes should require a visit to a healthcare provider, not a phone call to a faceless company representative with uncertain credentials.

Even if a company’s test is accurate and it ceases to disseminate misleading advice about the power of its supplements, consumers still want (and need) additional information and advice from healthcare professionals to interpret and act on the test results they receive.

-Katherine Drabiak-Syed

Berkeley Scheduled to Move Forward with Freshmen DNA Testing

Yesterday, Berkeley’s student newspaper The Daily Californian published on op-ed questioning Berkeley’s decision to move forward with its experiment designed collect DNA from consenting incoming freshman. The “Bring Your Genes to Cal” experiment originally made headlines over a month ago, when the New York Times and other major newspapers described the program and the corresponding polarized responses. In a few weeks, Berkeley is scheduled to send out information packets, informed consent forms, and buccal swab kits to the incoming freshman class to test for genetic variation related to their ability to process lactose, metabolize alcohol, and examine their levels of folic acid.

Mark Schlissel, MD, PhD, Professor of Immunology and Dean of Biological Sciences at Berkeley views the program as a lesson of how genetics and personalized medicine will impact students’ lives in the future. “We wanted to give students a sense of what’s coming, through genes that can provide them with useful information. I think it’s one of the best things we’ve done in years,” said Schlissel to the New York Times. Schlissel described how the campus will hold seminars and forums in the fall to discuss the significance of personal genetic information.

Despite Schlissel’s enthusiasm, the program is not without criticism. Jesse Reynolds, a policy analyst at the Center for Genetics and Society, acknowledged that educating incoming students on new genetic technologies can indeed constitute an important teachable experience, but raised several cautionary notes. First, Reynolds questioned whether students will freely consent to the test or whether they will feel subtle social pressure to submit a DNA sample. Second, and importantly, Reynolds asserted that by suggesting freshmen’s participation in this experiment, Berkeley is legitimizing or promoting the direct-to-consumer genetic testing industry.

As recent Berkeley alumnae Jillian Theil pointed out in her op-ed on Monday, the scientific validity of these tests when they are offered by direct-to-consumer (DTC) companies is still unknown. Earlier this month, the FDA stepped forward to assert that tests offered by companies such as 23andme and Navigenics are in fact invitro devices and fall under FDA review. But until the FDA and the companies offering DTC genetic tests work through the regulatory process, the current DTC genetic tests’ analytical and clinical validity remains uncertain.

Problematically, students will not fully learn about the complexities of federal regulation, genetic information, and how to contextually interpret it until after they receive their results during the fall discussion sessions on campus. Contrary to Schlissel’s categorization of these variants as innocuous information, bioethicist George Annas argued that a college student’s genetic variant relating to alcohol metabolism is far from harmless. “What if someone tests negative, and they don’t have the marker, so they think that means they can drink more? Like all genetic information, it’s potentially harmful,” asserted Annas in the New York Times.

Theil’s title hit the mark: proceed with caution, indeed. Students should know that similar tests offered in the marketplace are in the middle of potentially sweeping regulatory changes. Even if Berkeley’s tests are accurate, as Annas noted, students should interpret their genetic information carefully (should they choose to participate) and forgo basing any lifestyle decisions on their results.

--Katherine Drabiak-Syed

Newborn Blood Spot Banking in Canada

A controversy that began in Minnesota and Texas has spread north of the Canadian border to British Columbia. The BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) is opposing the potential research use, without parental consent, of 800,000 newborn blood spots stored in a facility operated by Iron Mountain of Burnaby, B.C. The BCCLA published a press release on May 12 explaining its opposition and its concerns regarding B.C. Legislative Assembly 2010, Bill 11. The BCCLA describes Bill 11 as: "a grab bag of miscellaneous legislative provisions, including sections 165-167 that give the Minister of Health power to collect, gather, use and share personal information without any notice to or consent from affected individuals."

In addition to opposing Bill 11, the BCCLA's David Eby and an unnamed parent are challenging the privacy practices of the B.C. Newborn Screening Program operated by the B.C. Women's Hospital. The hospital's president, Dr. Jan Christilaw, insists (in The Province), “No researcher is actually going to walk out of there with someone else’s blood.” However, at CBC News, the Screening Program's director confirms "some of the samples have ... been used by medical researchers to establish 'normal values and ranges'" to improve testing methods. Nonetheless, privacy advocates are not satisfied. The Globe and Mail (and others) quoted one worried parent, Rhian Walker:

“This was never, ever explained anywhere to me .... I think this would change a lot of parents’ perception of that test. You’re trying to do what’s best for your baby, so I’m a bit taken aback to learn that now that information is being stored and utilized in a way that I haven’t given consent for.”

Although, Eby wants samples stored without consent to be destroyed, Christilaw confirmed in The Vancouver Sun that "staff are finalizing an opt-out part of the program, so parents will be able to decide up front if they wish to participate in the screening."

While BCCLA's advocacy may or may not slow the progress of Bill 11, will it discourage the uptake of a valuable public health service?

Related:

Katherine Drabiak-Syed. Newborn blood spot banking: approaches to consent. PredictER Law and Policy Update. Indiana University Center for Bioethics. March 12, 2010.
Jere Odell. Newborn Blood Spots, Biobanks, and the Law: Research Ethics in the News. Indiana Bioethics. February 2010.
Link: National Newborn Screening and Genetics Resource Center

Other Predictive Health Ethics News

Dan Vorhaus. DNA Spit Kits Off Walgreens’ Shelves? Try Amazon.com. Genomics Law Report. May 13, 2010.
Michael Rugnetta. FDA Intervention Shelves Plan for Drugstore Genome Tests. Science Progress. May 13, 2010.
Andrew Pollack. Walgreens Delays Selling Personal Genetic Test Kit. The New York Times. May 12, 2010.
Courtney Hutchison. Over-the-Counter DNA Testing: Wave of the Future or Waste of Money? ABC News. May 11, 2010.
Philippa Brice. US genetic discrimination complaint. PHG Foundation News. May 7, 2010.
Sound Ethics. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Sound Medicine. May 2, 2010.
Bridget M. Kuehn. NIH Launching Genetic Test Registry. JAMA. 2010;303(17):1685.
Keith Doyle. UK Biobank 'close to signing up 500,000 participants'. BBC News. April 24, 2010.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Human bodies in medicine and research: consultation. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. April 19, 2010.
Larry Greenemeier. Case Studies Reveal that Patents Can Hinder Genetic Research and Patient Care. Scientific American. April 16, 2010.

- J.O.

Pathway Genomics: the Final Tipping Point for FDA Regulation of DTC Genetic Tests?

On Monday, the New York Times reported that Pathway Genomics, a company selling direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic and ancestry tests partnered with Walgreens, who was poised to begin stocking its shelves across the nation with kits. Two days later, the FDA sent a letter to Pathway Genomics asking the company to either show it has regulatory approval or explain why the test does not fall under the purview of FDA’s regulations. As a result of this controversy, Walgreens announced it will postpone selling the kit until the company resolves the issue with the FDA.


Pathway Genomics, like other DTC genetic tests, offers DNA testing to provide consumers information relating to genetic markers for risk of developing health conditions, carrier status, drug responses, and adverse medication reactions. Its website promises “with Personal DNA Testing, you can take preventative steps to improve your future, and even extend your life.” Despite these assertions, Pathway Genomics maintains its test should not fall under FDA regulation because it is “not intended for use in diagnosis, treatment or for the mitigation or cure of a disease.” This fine (or nonexistent) line of what constitutes a medical test rather than an informational service was the same argument used by Navigenics and 23andme back in 2008 when they responded to cease and desist letters sent by the California Department of Public Health.



Up until this point, the FDA has declined to regulate tests and active ingredients that a company creates itself in its own laboratory (home brew tests.) [See our previous posting on the topic here and our Direct-to-Consumer Law & Policy Update here.] Accordingly, the FDA has not regulated home brews’ claims of clinical validity, analytic validity, or clinical utility. That is, consumers had no assurance whether the test correctly correlated with the presence, absence, or increased risk of a certain disease; whether the test’s positive or negative test result correlated with the gene sequence; or whether the company provided useful information to translate these results to the consumer.


The Genomics Law Report posits that the sudden change in FDA’s response reflects the fact that Pathway Genomics will be the first company to sell its kit in a store location rather than through the internet, which increases its visibility and availability to consumers.


It also magnifies the potential that consumers may misunderstand or be misled by test results. Even if the test itself provides accurate information, the nature of DTC genetic tests presents inherent shortcomings. First, there is no requirement for a physician to determine whether the test is medically indicated prior to ordering. Second, there is no mandatory genetic counseling to explain the significance and limitations of the results.


Like several other companies, Pathway Genomics charges additional fees for a consumer to purchase telephone sessions with a genetic counselor. Unlike other companies, Pathway Genomics states it will provide a free genetic counseling session if the company deems it “medically necessary.” This gracious offer misses the point that genetic counselors should always be part of the genetic testing equation. It also leaves us to wonder, how does Pathway Genomics decide what constitutes a medically necessary reason?


It seems Pathway Genomics’ business decision to partner with the drugstore giant may have finally caught the FDA’s attention. FDA’s investigation into Pathway Genomics’ test into may turn out to be the long awaited tipping point for FDA to revise its stance and begin to regulate DTC genetic tests.

-Katherine Drabiak-Syed

Direct-to-Consumer Fetal Sex Prediction Tests: the US is Not Immune to Sex Selection

In January, Dutch researchers published a study relating to a new method for screening maternal blood to determine fetal sex as early as seven weeks after conception. Although this test reports 100% accuracy, other direct-to-consumer (DTC) fetal sex prediction tests that advertise online offer similar tests with unregulated accuracy.


Recently, these tests have come under increased scrutiny based on the possibility that consumers both in the US and abroad may purchase the tests as a means obtaining information about fetal sex as the first step in seeking a sex selection abortion. Unlike an ultrasound (performed at 18-20 weeks in the second trimester), these DTC tests advertise the ability to predict fetal sex between 5-10 weeks in the first trimester. This offers parents an opportunity to determine fetal sex and make corresponding planning decisions to produce a child of a specific sex that may have been previously unaffordable (through means such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis or sperm selection) or inaccessible (second trimester sex selection abortions).


Three main countries- China, India, and Korea- are often used as examples of countries with socio-cultural environments that contribute to male child bias in attitude and action. Literature contains extensive discussion on how and why socio-cultural attitudes have traditionally, and still to a large extent, continue to favor male children and perpetuate extensive gender discrimination within the respective countries. The magnitude of bias is reflected in the skewed population ratios such as the 50 million “missing” females that should otherwise exist in the Chinese population. These deeply entrenched reasons for male bias and the pervasiveness of these attitudes means that even despite legal steps to explicitly limit or prohibit sex selection abortions, for decades both parents and practitioners have ignored laws designed to prevent this practice in each respective country.


In recognition of this issue, some DTC fetal sex prediction companies specify that they do not sell the product to consumers in China and or India. However, some companies have not issued such restrictions, and consumers in India or China can locate these products by a simple internet search. In India, scholar and activist Dr. Sabu George filed a lawsuit against Google and Yahoo seeking to enforce an Indian law against advertising products that reveal fetal sex. While the search engines have pulled some advertisements, internet searches still provide links to the DTC fetal sex prediction company websites.


The potential of using fetal sex prediction tests as a means of sex selection is not only a problematic issue limited to other countries. Both attitudinal research and recent litigation suggests that some parents in the US may use these tests for sex selection purposes.


Despite a notion that the general US population does not possess a preference for a child of a specific sex, statistics suggest this assumption may not be correct. Numerous studies demonstrate that members of the US population do possess attitudinal bias favoring male children, either as only children or first born. Some parents not only hold this male child bias, but are also willing to translate these attitudes into practice to achieve the desired outcome.


Another lawsuit against the Baby Gender Mentor product, Duffy et al. v. Acu-Gen Biolabs et al., also confirms these attitudes exist within the US population. Plaintiffs allege the tests were inaccurate and falsely predicted their baby’s sex, which caused them emotional distress and had a “devastating effect.” One plaintiff asserts that the incorrect test results contributed to the demise of her marriage because her husband wanted a boy, while another plaintiff upon learning the results “struggled, needlessly, with whether to keep [the pregnancy.]”


Granted, vast socio-cultural differences exist between counties such as India, China, and the US that could lead to less devastating population wide outcomes. However, does this mean we should be less concerned that only a small percentage of the population may use these tests for sex selection purposes? What can we learn from these countries when formulating our policy relating to how these tests can or cannot be used?

--Katherine Drabiak-Syed

Lawsuit Challenging Myriad’s BRCA1 and BRCA2 Patents Will Go Forward: Judge Rejects Defendants’ Attempts to Preclude Plaintiffs’ Day in Court

Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Civil Action No. 09-4515 RWS ((S.D.N.Y. 2009) known as the lawsuit against Myriad Genetics challenging its gene patents related to BRCA1 and BRCA2 will go forward.

On November 1, 2009 Judge Robert Sweet handed down an order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss. In the 85 page order, Judge Sweet accepted many of plaintiffs’ arguments set forth in the complaint and accompanying affidavits, finding that the court may properly hear the case and plaintiffs may properly sue each defendant.

The court flatly rejected defendants’ assertion that plaintiffs could not use the court as an arena to challenge questions of patentability.

Judge Sweet declined to adopt defendants’ arguments that the existence of the Patent Act as a comprehensive statutory scheme demonstrates Congressional intent to provide an internal remedy and preclude judicial challenges of the nature in this suit. The court noted that despite the USPTO’s statutory scheme to address patent questions, it does not provide a comparable statutory framework to raise Constitutional concerns and provide remedy accordingly; thus, plaintiffs may still bring an action to enforce the asserted Constitutional rights.

The court’s arrival at this reasoning is closely connected to Judge Sweet’s lengthy description of why the plaintiffs’ allegations of Constitutional violations are adequate and why the Court will not grant defendants’ motions to dismiss. The order described plaintiffs’ assertions that Myriad’s patents in question grant Myriad ownership rights over products of nature, laws of nature, natural phenomena, abstract ideas, basic human knowledge, and thought, which would violate the First Amendment. Additionally, plaintiffs pled that Myriad’s ownership of the patents in question inhibited further research, which would violate of Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution that directs Congress (and by delegation, the USPTO) to promote the progress of science.

The court also rejected Myriad’s arguments that plaintiffs could not show Myriad acted affirmatively to enforce the patents or that plaintiffs undertook meaningful preparation to potentially infringe the patents.

Judge Sweet adopted facts set forth in plaintiffs’ complaint and affidavits describing how Myriad sent out cease and desist letters to researcher plaintiffs and initiated two actions against infringers, demonstrating Myriad’s affirmative actions and willingness to enforce the patents. Importantly, the court further noted that given the widespread knowledge of the breadth of Myriad’s claims and its willingness to enforce its patents, a court would likely find that infringement of the patents would be considered willful and result in treble damages- meaning a scientist attempting BRCA research could be subject to extraordinary damages above merely compensating Myriad for any monetary losses.

Additionally, Judge Sweet accepted the researcher plaintiffs’ assertions that they are ready, willing, and able to infringe the patent because they are prepared to advance BRCA research, and or offer testing, and could do so within a matter of weeks. The court also noted that the plaintiff women affected by breast or ovarian cancer could take advantage of testing alternatives to find another test covered by their insurance or obtain a second opinion (options currently denied to them because of Myriad’s patents) that would potentially classify them as contributory infringers, meaning they could also properly sue the defendants.

The case moves forward and the court will hear parties’ oral arguments on motions for summary judgment on January 21, 2010. At this hearing, the court will decide whether there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute that would preclude the court from ruling as a matter of law for one party. If Judge Sweet’s order is any indication, a multitude of problems exist that are ripe for a hearing, and in the near future this court could squarely address these contentious issues arising from gene sequence patents. Perhaps finally the judicial system could address both the USPTO's and Congress' failure to re-examine patentability standards for gene sequences and decide whether issuing gene patents run contrary to Constitutional and statutory requirements.

-Katherine Drabiak-Syed

New German Law on Genetic Testing: More Than Just a German GINA

EuroGentest has recently posted an unofficial English translation of the recently passed and soon to be enacted German legislation, the Human genetic examination act (Genetic diaganosis act - GenDG) [PDF - 162 KB]. The new law addresses genetic examinations (including consent, duty to inform, counselling, and disclosure), genetic testing and insurance contracts, workplace issues (including discrimination), and criminal penalties (prison time, in some circumstances, and fines of up to EURO 300,000).

Hat tip: CanGeneTest e-Newsletter, August 3, 2009.

- J.O.

Genetic Testing and Privacy: Are Our Health Care Policies Adequate?

As a genetics professional who provides genetic testing, I am aware of the fact that many individuals contemplating genetic testing cite insurance and employment concerns as major reasons to forego testing. For that reason, I heaved a sigh of relief on May 21, 2008 when the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) was signed in to law. First introduced in 1995, at a time when only about 300 genetic tests were currently in use and these for mainly rare diseases, it was called both forward-thinking and premature. Now hailed as the first civil rights law of the new century, GINA will prohibit group and individual health insurers from using a person’s genetic information in determining eligibility or premiums and prohibit employers from using a person’s genetic information in making employment decisions such as hiring, firing, job assignment, or other terms of employment. Guidelines for segregating genetic information from other medical records are expected to be forthcoming.

As I thought more about it, however, I realized that the world has changed rapidly in the 14 years since this bill was first introduced, and that these changes may well undermine the protections that GINA was meant to provide. I see four main threats: 1) more genetic information everywhere, 2) data expansion, 3) genome wide association studies, and 4) electronic medical records.

Under the more information heading, the terms “Genetic information” and “genetic condition” are becoming more difficult to define. We are finding that almost all illness has some genetic component such that making clear distinctions between genetic and non-genetic health information is becoming increasingly meaningless. Under the data expansion category, genetic research has shifted from diseases linked to a single gene (Huntington disease, cystic fibrosis) to more common and complex illnesses characterized by the interactions of multiple genes and environmental factors (asthma, diabetes). There are now over 1500 genetic tests in use and in the not-so-distant future, nearly all health records will include substantial genetic information. Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) look for single changes in the hundreds of thousands of base pairs (A,T,C,G) that make up the human genome associated with a particular illness or condition. These conditions may be as serious as breast cancer or as frivolous as what type of ear wax you are prone to develop. These tests are being aggressively marketed directly to consumers and can be ordered on line for less than $400. There is little oversight of the companies marketing these tests and as one who works in the field of genetics, it seems almost criminal to test for one mutation associated with cystic fibrosis out of the more than 1000 known CF mutations and call that information useful in the absence of extensive educational efforts. It may not be long before our patients come to our offices with their printouts from 23&Me and ask to add them to their medical record. The fourth threat may be the shift from paper-based medical records to electronic health records (EHR) with their goal of standardization, compatibility, and ease of transport. In a paper-based system, the greatest protection of individual privacy is chaos, the inability to aggregate a complete record from multiple providers over time. Comprehensive and longitudinal medical records will inevitably contain sensitive information and patients will no longer have the option of selective recall in the sense of “is that depressive episode I experienced in graduate school after being mugged really relevant information for the orthopedist performing my knee surgery twenty years later?” Electronic medical records will make it even more difficult to sequester genetic information.

One other developing trend may also play a role, the refinement of personalized medicine, the ability to target drug therapies customized to each person’s genetic makeup to both improve the effectiveness of current treatments and to reduce side effects. Pharmacogenetic testing is becoming standard practice in selecting drugs and dosages for certain cancers while toxicogenetics, the use of GWAS studies to predict how individuals may respond to certain toxins, is becoming more important in assessing both individual and public health risks. If genetic factors appear to play a role in individual and/or community resistance to flu viruses, who knows what might happen.

Technology moves rapidly while our legislature does not. A bill introduced to fix a problem in 1995 may not be as relevant or as useful in 2009. So while I am still happy that GINA was finally passed, the devil, as they say, is in the details, and it remains to be seen how much protection is actually provided for our patients and their families.

Kimberly A. Quaid, Ph.D.

Long Term Outcomes of Presymptomatic Testing in Huntington Disease

Huntington disease (HD) is a late onset autosomal dominant neuropsychiatric disorder. Symptoms include a movement disorder, mood disturbances and dementia. The average age of onset is approximately 40 years of age and if one of your parents is affected with the disease, you have a 50% chance of having inherited the genetic mutation that causes HD. Men and woman are equally affected.

In 1993, the genetic mutation that causes Huntington Disease was discovered. This discovery meant that direct genetic testing for the presence or absence of the HD mutation could be offered. Testing is usually offered within a multidisciplinary framework including geneticists, neurologists, psychologists, nurses and social workers and within a testing protocol that involves a neurological examination, pretest counseling, results in person and available follow-up. Estimates indicate that in Europe, less than 20% of individuals at risk for HD takes the test. Estimates for the United States suggest that the uptake of testing is even lower. The lack of a cure for HD, or a treatment that can delay the onset or slow the progression of the disease, is likely a major factor in the low uptake of testing.

Recently, in some HD circles, there have been calls to increase the number of individuals getting tested in order to have a cohort of gene positive individuals ready to participate in future clinical trials. This desire to increase the number of individuals tested is, in my opinion, wrong headed for many reasons, but a recent paper on the long term effects of testing also suggests that caution is in order.

In February of 2009, the European Journal of Human Genetics published a paper examining the long term impact of presymptomatic testing for Huntington disease. The authors interviewed 119 (57 gene carriers and 63 non-carriers) asymptomatic individuals after an average delay of 3.7 years after they received their genetic test result. The main outcomes of interest in the paper were social and psychological adjustment after testing (1).

The results were as follows: The overall scores for social adjustment were similar in carriers and non-carriers and were in the normal range for both groups. Carriers were not more anxious than non-carriers, but current depression was significantly more frequent in the carriers. Prior to testing, there were no differences in the number of carriers and non-carriers who had experienced a depressive episode. After testing, however, the percentage of carriers experiencing depression rose from 42% to 49% while the percentage of non-carriers experiencing depression fell from 45% to 31%. Perhaps even more important is the fact that carriers had significantly higher scores than non-carriers when evaluated with the Beck Hopelessness Scale, considered to be a measure of suicidality. Of note is the fact that while there was one suicide attempt and one hospitalization for major depression after testing in the carrier group, three non-carriers also attempted suicide, one was hospitalized for depression and one hospitalized for a psychotic episode. Despite this evident distress, only 31% of the carriers and 15% of the non-carriers were under psychiatric care and only 36% of the carriers and 15% of the non-carriers were under treatment with antidepressant or anti-anxiety medications. Further investigation indicated that the best predictor for the occurrence of depression after taking the test was the presence of a previous depressive episode. In other words, individuals who have experienced depression prior to testing are more likely to experience depression after testing. Finally, when asked to rate the current impact of the test results on their lives, carriers gave a more negative rating than non-carriers and reported that they had less ability to cope with the test results than non-carriers. Again, it is important to note that more than 25% of the non-carriers reported difficulty coping with the test result.

It is possible to compare these results with a previous study looking at long term outcomes 7-10 years after testing (2). This study of 142 tested individuals and their partners found that carriers and their partners were more distressed immediately after the test. Their outlook appeared to improve somewhat in the 2-3 year post test period but became more negative as the age of onset approached. This study also found that carriers who were lost to follow-up reported more pretest distress than did those carriers who participated in the follow-up study. This finding, which reflects both my own experience and the anecdotal experience of other test center directors, is important because it suggests that most studies examining the impact of testing may tend to underestimate the amount of distress that is being experienced by those who have been tested.

So what do these results tell us? In the 2009 study, almost half of the carriers where experiencing depression after testing. However, almost a third of non-carriers were also experiencing depression. At least two studies have suggested that it might take up to five years for non-carriers to experience a positive change in their quality of life after receiving a favorable test result (3,4). One explanation that has been given is that it takes this long to resolve the emotional state of mourning for the loss of being at risk and the end of doubt about one’s genetic status. Others have hypothesized that that non-carriers may be experiencing 1) survivor guilt for not having the HD gene when others in the family might 2) regret for life decisions made in the past as a function of being at risk, 3) inability to leave behind the at risk mind set, 4) inability to truly believe the test results, and 5) negative reactions on the part of family members (1).

Whatever the explanation, these results indicate that individuals at risk, carriers and non-carriers alike, may be a vulnerable population and that it is particularly important to assess and treat depression before testing and to provide psychological support and psychiatric care after testing. These results also suggest that the decision to be tested should not be made lightly and that the impact of testing may last a long time after results are given.
References:

1. Gargiulo M, Lejeune S, Tanguy ML et al, (2009). Long-term outcome of presymptomatic testing in Huntington disease. European Journal of Human Genetics, 17:165-171.

2. Timman R, Roos R, Maat-Kievet A, and Tibben A. (2004) Adverse effects of predictive testing for Huntington Disease underestimated: Long term effects 7-10 years after the test. Health Psychology 23:189-197.

3. Decruyenaere M, Evers-Kiebooms G, Cloostermans T et al. (2003) Psychological distress in the 5-year period after predictive testing for Huntington disease. European Journal of Human Genetics 11:30-38.

4. Almqvist EW, Brinkman RR, Wiggins S, Hayden MR (2003) Psychological consequences and predictors of adverse events in the first 5 years after predictive testing for Huntington disease. Clinical Genetics 64: 300-309.

Kimberly A. Quaid, PhD

Personalized Medicine: PredictER Collaborator Featured in NY Times

David A Flockhart, MD, PhD, Division Chief of the IU Department of Medicine’s Division of Clinical Pharmacology and PredictER Collaborator, was featured in a December 29th New York Times article that is part of a compelling series examining steps taken toward medicine based on evidence. The article, Patient’s DNA May Be Signal to Tailor Medicine, provides a highly readable overview of personalized medicine, illustrates the field’s inherent potential to increase positive outcomes and decrease costs, and then discusses some of the conundrums that genetically-tailored medicine presents. The author, Andrew Pollack, uses the outcomes of Flockhart’s extensive tamoxifen research to aptly illustrate the medical promise of genetic testing and its broader implications. Flockhart’s research demonstrates that a particular enzyme, CYP2D6, is responsible for converting tamoxifen into a different substance, called endoxifen, which is then directly responsible for fighting breast cancer. The CYP2D6 gene, however, varies between people such that the mechanism is inactive in about 7% of the population, and only moderately active in 20-40%. As the article points out, most patients are now treated with a more expensive class of drugs that demonstrated greater efficacy in clinical trials conducted before the role of CYP2D6 was fully understood. For those women with active CYP2D6, however, tamoxifen may well be the better alternative for the patient, both medically and economically. Genetic testing to determine gene activity in this scenario may therefore have vast economic implications for the pharmaceutical industry.

Amy Lewis Gilbert

Genetic Testing and Personalized Drugs: PredictER at Spirit and Place

As part of the 2008 Spirit & Place Festival, a panel of experts from the Indiana University Center for Bioethics and the Indiana University School of Medicine will join together to illustrate the complex intersection of ethics, medicine and science. Dr. Eric M. Meslin, director of the Center for Bioethics; Dr. Kimberly A. Quaid, professor of medical and molecular genetics; and Dr. David Flockhart, chief of the division of clinical pharmacology, will present Imagining Our Medical Future: The Ethics of Predictive Genetic Testing and the Search for Personalized Drugs this Sunday, November 9th, 2:00-4:00 p.m. at the Indiana Medical History Museum, 3045 W. Vermont Street, Indianapolis. Free tours of the museum will be available both before and after the panel discussion. More information regarding the Spirit & Place Festival, which is runs now through November 16th, is available at www.spiritandplace.org - ALG

IndyStar - Do you want to know? Direct-to- consumer DNA tests ...

PredictER's Kimberly Quaid and Indiana University Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics' Dr. Gail Vance comment on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in today's issue of The Indianapolis Star. Quaid notes:

"For a lot of genetic conditions, there is not much we can actually do to change them. So, what are people getting out of the tests?" … While legitimate genetic tests exist, such as one to detect the BRAC mutations for breast cancer, Quaid said, she doesn't see the sense in identifying risks for every disease. She also doubts the validity of tests used by some firms. … Traditionally, health-related genetic tests have been available only through health-care providers, who decide whether they are based on family history and symptoms, and who interpret results for patients. Quaid said that method better safeguards consumers.

The Best Predictive Health Ethics Blogs - June 2008

California and Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing:

California's decision to send cease-and-desist letters to thirteen direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies (including 23andME, deCODEme, Knome, and Navigenics) ignited a blogging wild-fire of mostly outraged responses. Some of the more widely read expressions of protest were blogged at Wired Science and include Thomas Goetz's much-echoed Attention, California Health Dept.: My DNA Is My Data (17 June 2008). For an alternative reaction see Steve Murphy's posts on the topic at Gene Sherpa, which include: Do you hear that sound Mr Anderson? (15 June 2008), A$$ Kicking (17 June 2008), and R'Uh-R'Oh Shaggy!!! (17 June 2008). Although many of the replies to Murphy's posts offer only more expressions of outrage, Daniel MacArthur at Genetic Future engages Murphy in a thoughtful exchange beginning with California cracks down on genetic testing companies (15 June 2008) and Cat-fight over California (18 June 2008). Finally, for a good overview of the news and blogging on the subject, see Blaine Bettinger's recent post The Genetic Mess in California - A Round-Up, and My Thoughts (30 June 2008) at The Genetic Genealogist.

Employee Wellness

Matt Mealiffe of DNA and You writes in response to the news that Japan will require companies and local governments to "measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups" with the standard of "33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women" (see Norimitsu Onishi, Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions. The New York Times. 13 June 2008). In Mealiffe's assessment (14 June 2008), mandatory waistline measurement is "bold social policy" which may be, however, genetic discrimination.

In an unrelated post on a similar topic, Jane Sarasohn-Kahn of Health Populi reports employee attitudes regarding the privacy risks of employers' wellness programs. Writing in Is worker wellness a privacy issue? (5 June 2008), Sarasohn-Kahn summarizes the findings of a recent report: "Employees are concerned that this information could be used to reduce benefits or for even more egregious purposes". An overview of the findings, "Health and Wellness: the shift from managing illness to promoting health" is available from the Center for Studying Health System Change [PDF].

Law & Policy

Andrew W. Torrance of BioLaw: Law and the Life Sciences reflects on the sometimes presumed amoral status of patent law in U.S. – a status that is not presumed in Europe. In Patently Immoral Genes (2 June 2008), Torrance shares the recent, related work of the European Society of Human Genetics ("ESHG") which "has issued recommendations that would severely limit patents on genes in the European Patent Office (EPO) and member states of the EPC." According to Torrance, "the ESHG recommends that the EPO establish an 'ethics committee' to police the patentability of controversial technological innovations". He believes that this news may be of interest to policy makers in the States, including: California Democrat, Xavier Becerra, a sponsor of the "Genomic Research and Accessibility Act" (H.R.-977 – Thomas | GovTrack.us).

Nick Agar writes at What Sorts of People on a report by The Bioethics Council of New Zealand on the completion of its program Who gets born? Pre-birth testing. The report responds to the New Zealand government's decision to fund pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for couples with a high risk of conceiving a child with a genetic disorder. In NZ bioethics council (27 June 2008), Agar notes that "the emphasis is very much on facilitating parental choice, with health professionals given the role of supplying parents with the information they need to make choices consistent with their values". He observes that the Council made a deliberate effort to solicit participation from a wide range of "interested parties", but cautions that there may be "a bit of fallacy of bureaucratic representativeness here – if a committee’s composition approximately matches the representation of various communities in the general population then its pronouncements must be representative of the viewpoints of those different communities".

Personalized Medicine

Reflecting, in part, on the prevalence of "Personalize Medicine" in the recent 2008 BIO Convention, Jennifer Miller at Bioethics International defines the topic and introduces some of the ethical and legal issues. She identifies six ethical issues in Personalized medicine: an introduction, its promises and the ethics (26 June 2008):

(1) just access to, allocation and application of the new technologies, (2) privacy concerns, (3) respecting parties’ autonomy, (4) obtaining quality informed consents, (5) intellectual property rights, particularly in connection with bio-banking, (6) overall resource allocation and prioritization questions ….

Reviews

Bonnie Green, writing for BioethicsBytes (17 June 2008), reviews "An Adventure into Ourselves", the third episode of a four-part television series entitled DNA: The Human Race (Channel 4, 2003). [BioethicsBytes hosts and reviews resources for ethics education. The project aims "to assist in the teaching of bioethics, with particular emphasis on multimedia materials (film, TV, streamed media) as case studies".] Green's thorough review of "An Adventure into Ourselves" marks interesting quotations and highlights the social and political context of the Human Genome Project (HGP). She observes that the series and the episode form "an excellent basis for teaching both the science and bioethics of the HGP and large scale sociotechnical projects". The post also includes YouTube footage from related programming about the X-Prize.

Writing for Gene Expression, "Herrick" reviews Heredity and Hope: The Case for Genetic Screening, by Ruth Schwartz Cowan (Harvard University Press: 2008. 270 pp. $27.95, £18.95). This blogger points to three aspects of Cowan's book on genetic screening. In Heredity and Hope by Ruth Schwartz Cowan (11 June 2008), "Herrick" observes that Cowan distinguishes contemporary genetic medicine from mid-20th century eugenics by 1) showing that "genetic screening is a bottom-up social phenomenon, not a top-down mandate", 2) highlighting the "pro-natalist" aspects of contemporary genetic screening, and 3) sharing happy-ending stories about the proper use of this technology. In conclusion, "Herrick" observes:

Functionally, Cowan does the same thing for genetic screening that The New Republic did for tough-on-crime policies in the 80's and 90's: Cowan does some liberal hand-wringing while telling the reader that no, you're not becoming a Brownshirt if you agree to an amnio.

Predictive Health: Best Ethics Blogs - April, 2008

This issue of the "best" predictive health ethics blogs includes entries on education, eugenics, genetic counseling, genetic testing, personal genomes and privacy.

Education

More on the need for science education. Sue Trinidad, Women's Bioethics Blog. 11 April 2008.
How will tomorrow's voters make informed decisions about the predictive health research and medicine. Sue Trinidad looks at the results of a recent evaluation (see: PMID: 18245328) of submissions to the DNA Day essay contest for high school students; the forecast is not good. After reading comments like:

Genetics create a perfect being. Change the genes. Make that child perfect. There's no better solution to an impending health care crisis. … What we can have is a sea of people who all look brilliant, who are all smart and who all have perfect eyes, nose and lips. It's a perfect society, what more could we want?

Trinidad calls for improved K-12 science education:

[T]hese are the responses of students who were willing to participate in an essay contest about genetics. What must be the level of understanding among those who wouldn't bother? Clearly, CLEARLY, we need to do a better job of K-12 science education.


Eugenics?

Genetic DisEnhancement -- Does reproductive autonomy extend to choosing a disability? Linda MacDonald Glenn, Women's Bioethics Blog. 13 April 2008.
Following the recent news from the UK that the government will remove references to deafness from the proposed Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, a decision that will permit couples to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select a child with congenital deafness, Glenn questions the broader implications of the decision:

My concern about removing the clause banning the creation of disabled children entirely, is why stop at deafness? Aren't the primary purposes of medicine to heal, to cure diseases, restore, and alleviate suffering? … So the question is how far does reproductive autonomy go? Nobody wants to see a fellow human being struggle or suffer, especially in the name of 'reproductive autonomy.'

Whose Normality? D. Joy Riley, bioethics.com. 17 April 2008.
After reading that a economically disadvantaged couple in India accepted a child with Craniofacial Duplication as potentially a reincarnated deity, Riley wonders about Western notions of "normal" in the context of prenatal genetic diagnosis. Riley is alarmed by the concept that prenatal screening for Huntington's Disease "could eliminate this entire population!" The author asks:

Who defines ‘normal’? Is normal equal to “without disease or abnormality”? If so, when? Is normal to be born without disease, or to be born with no disease or disorder present at birth, AND no genes for known disorders that will develop later in life, like breast cancer, familial polyposis of the colon, or Huntington’s Disease?


Genetic Counseling

Now this is why we need genetic counselors. SciPhu. 25 April 2008.
After writing (in an earlier post) that reliable predictive testing may render the job the genetic counselor obsolete, the author of SciPhu reads a paper by lead author Kimberly Quaid (a PredictER team member). SciPhu calls the experience "eye-opening". When it comes to "high risk tests", such as a test for Huntington's Disease, SciPhu concludes:

The final take home message must be that not testing for a condition has significant value, especially when treatment options are scarce or non-existent. … Hope is sometimes a life saver. Knowledge on the other hand, can put peoples lives in ruins.


Genetic Testing

Over-regulation. Steve Murphy, Gene Sherpas: Personalized Medicine and You. 8 April 2008.
In this "follow-the-money" assessment of genomic medicine, Murphy points to the disproportionate influence of the business sector: "Genomic Medicine is being driven by business. Why? Because academia has failed to take the bull by the horns. Why? They are comfortable in their own realm. This is a stretch for them." In Murphy's view, while business sees potential money in testing, less emphasis is placed on genetic counseling and other genetic services. In the long run, however, this lop-sided approach may hurt the life sciences industry. Murphy cautions that the direct-to-consumer genetic testing push may be annoying all the wrong people—some of the big names on the beltway: "AMA, ACP, SACGHS, FDA, CMS, GAO, US Senate, Department of HHS, FTC, ACMG, NHGRI..." In other words, "over regulation" may be on the way.

The gap is widening on genetic testing, too. Ricki Lewis, blog.bioethics.net. 14 April 2008.
Following a post on the widening gap between public perceptions and the reality of the current state of the art in stem cell science, Ricki Lewis writes on a similar gap in the genetic testing industry. Lewis warns that whole-genome association tests may not be ready for the consumer market:

The truth is, and the direct-to-consumer company websites actually say so in the fine print ... Consumers may not be aware of these limitations, nor realize that “link,” “marker,” and “association,” have precise scientific meanings.

After reciting the disclaimers, Lewis doubts the services provided by 23andMe, Navigenics, and deCODEme are legitimately non-medical and asserts:

It isn’t ethical to market DNA tests based on whole genome population-based studies without randomized, controlled clinical trials, replication, and validation. ... Whether considering stem cells or DNA tests, that’s simply the way that good medical science is done.

The Ethics of Genetic Testing. William Martin, Free and Wandering Thought. 18 April 2008.
After reporting his less than stellar performance on a recent "biopsych test", Martin shares a few free thoughts on the ethics of genetic testing for diseases like Huntington's and Bipolar disorder. Martin worries about where our society will draw the lines for the appropriate use of genetic information. Like many, he anticipates that trouble in the insurance industry and asks:
"What happens when insurance companies find out you are XX% likely to develop a disease?"

With this in mind, Martin applauds Paul Wellstone's drafted "Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act", which, as Martin reports, might have some impact on how insurance companies will (or will not) use genetic information to determine coverage for mental health disorders.

Personal Genomes and the Bioscience Industry

The Personal Genome discussion. Sandra Porter, Discovering Biology in a Digital World. 24 April 2008.
Porter provides a summary of panel discussion at the University of Washington. At the event Bill Gates, Eric Lander, Maynard Olson, Leena Peltonen, and George Church fielded questions from the audience about the personal genomics revolution. Porter summarizes responses to some really interesting questions, including:

Should people be given information about genes that are related to diseases if there's nothing that can be done?
What are options for the personal genome to benefit third world populations?
How will personal genomics affect privacy?
Are we going to make designer babies?

Also see Deepak Singh's thoughts on the discussion at bbgm.

Personal Genomics Takes a Bashing on Physician Oversight, Financial Backing, and Privacy. Hsien-Hsien Lei, Eye on DNA. 21 April 2008.
Lei reviews the "snarky" news coverage of the consumer genomics industry published in Forbes and BusinessWeek. While Forbes reports that New York's State Department of Health has sent threatening letters to some direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies ("jail-time"!), BusinessWeek focuses on Google's role in supporting the industry. Lei concludes: "If anyone ever organizes a biosciences startup school, they need to put regulatory affairs, investment choices, and privacy concerns on the syllabus!"


Privacy

A new model for genetic privacy: you don't have any. Daniel MacArthur, Genetic Future. 20 April 2008.
After perusing a perspective piece in Nature Reviews Genetics, MacArthur notes that the authors call for a paradigm shift in the approach to research subject privacy, he comments: "Essentially, they argue that 'the reality of the new genetics and genomics urges us to abandon the traditional concept of medical confidentiality …'." In MacArthur's assessment, the authors:

[A]rgue for a strategy of "maximizing data protection while informing people about its limits". In other words, doing your best to limit disclosure of individual health data, while clearly informing participants of the fact that their privacy can't be guaranteed.

Although he sees the value to the science and acknowledges the risk to privacy, MacArthur wonders how these changes might influence the future of human subjects research:

[W]ill such a policy discourage people with a clear family history of genetic disease from participating in large-scale cohort studies (for insurance reasons), thus reducing the power of such studies to detect disease-associated variants? Will it create a generation gap in research participation, with conservative older people shunning studies while the children of the Facebook era - who engage in public disclosure of information with a willfulness that seems shocking to their elders - embrace participation?

Best Predictive Health Ethics Blogs - March, 2008

See February and January 2008 for prior reviews of the best predictive health ethics blogs. I have limited this month's installment to the ten posts. If, after reading these, you believe I've omitted a good post, please let me know. This month's blogs (listed chronologically) include some familiar names and a couple of new ones, including: Adventures in Ethics and Science, Synthesis, and Genetics & Health.

CF "success" story. Steve Murphy, Gene Sherpas. 1 March 2008.
Steve Murphy of Gene Sherpas seldom shies away from an ethical issue. Thus, when the NEJM reported the good news that "The number of infants born with cystic fibrosis in Massachusetts decreased by 50% from one four-year period to the next" (MedPage Today, 28 February 2008). Murphy acknowledged the upside, "children born with CF in the future may actually have less significant disease and may need to have less aggressive or less early interventions". He reminds us, however, that some doctors and patients now face heavy decisions:

The number of infants born with cystic fibrosis in Massachusetts decreased by 50% from one four-year period to the next according to this letter in the NEJM. They attribute this to the Newborn screening available in Massachusetts since 1999. … But here's what they don't say.....Preconception screening for this disease is important, but a highly personal choice. ... despite what the ACMG and ACOG say. There are some children who are doing just fine with CF. As for adults with CF like the 74 year old patient who I diagnosed a few years ago, I am certain they would not want to have never been born.

Should Researchers Share Data? Janet D. Stemwedel, Adventures in Ethics and Science. 3 March 2008.
Janet Stemwedel of Adventures in Ethics and Science comments on the widely discussed Andrew Vickers essay in The New York Times – "Cancer Data? Sorry, Can’t Have It" (22 January 2008). Stemwedel does an excellent job of highlighting the importance of data sharing for the success of translational research. She also acknowledges the research subject's contribution to this research and the exposure to risk that they have assumed. Stemwedel writes:

[R]isk is supposed to be offset by the benefits of the knowledge gained from the research. If that data sits unanalyzed, the benefits of the research are decreased and the risks undertaken by the human subjects are harder to justify. Moreover, to the extent that sitting on data instead of sharing it requires other researchers to go out and get more data of their own, this means that more human subjects are exposed to risk than might be necessary to answer the scientific questions posed in the research.

How Private is Private? Is Google a covered entity? Cheryl Lew, Women's Bioethics Blog. 4 March 2008.
After observing that HIPAA was not written with Google's emerging patient managed, personal health records in mind, Cheryl Lew of Women's Bioethics Blog wonders if additional government protections might be required. Lew writes:

[W]ill Google patients be subject to advertising spam or other intrusive advertisement adduced from their prescription lists? What guarantees that the “client” (read patient lists) won’t be sold to Pharma companies as yet another means of developing data bases about physician prescribing patterns? Who is going to regulate these issues? Google is a great search engine—I use it all the time! But I’m not sure I want to use it to manage my healthcare information.

Genomes of the Rich and Famous. Jesse Reynolds, Biopolitical Times. 5 March 2008.
Reacting, in part, to "Gene Map Becomes a Luxury Item" (Amy Harmon, The New York Times. 4 March 2008), Reynolds was the only blogger that I know about that picked up on the irony in drive towards celebrity genomics. Reynolds observes:

The prospect of biotechnology companies capitalizing on genetic information in order to develop profitable products without properly compensating the studied populations brings to mind biocolonialism, in which politically and economically vulnerable indigenous groups are exploited. But a growing convergence of genomics and information technology may lead, ironically, to the genetic "exploitation" of society's most elite.

The moral manipulation of Gattaca. Daniel MacArthur, Genetic Future. 6 March 2008.
Daniel MacArthur of Genetic Future is becoming a regular here in the "best ethics blogs" series. This month MacArthur introduces (with help from Black Belt Bayesian) us to an essay on one of the favorite films for bioethics classrooms—Gattaca:

A man is given strong medical evidence that he will die from a heart attack if exposed to the exertions of space travel, thus risking how own life and the lives of his crewmates. Ignoring this evidence, he fakes his way into astronaut training - and inexplicably, we cheer him on. How did the makers of Gattaca steer us towards this bizarre response?

The full essay, by Neven Sesardic and forthcoming in The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Cinema, 2008, is available online: Gattaca (PDF – 209 KB).

Genetic testing - ‘recreational genomics’ or the future of diagnostics? Elaine Warburton, Genetics & Health. 18 March 2008.
Reacting to editorials in The New England Journal of Medicine and The British Medical Journal, Elaine Warburton of Genetics & Health acknowledges the limitations of the current methodologies, but notes that "introducing innovative genetic testing technology has to start somewhere". Warburton observes that 23andMe and other genomics companies are taking "huge financial and clinical risk[s] in bringing these tests to market". Warburton sees the uncertainty involved as merely a part of the ongoing cycle of research and development:

The tests are in their infancy and each of these companies are transparent in advising their customers of this fact. That said, massive scientific research continues to take place to build on the knowledge base of these tests, so that they may be refined. This process will never end.

Also see Warburton's related post: Ethical guidelines for whole genome studies. 26 March 2008.

The G.I.N.A. could be a bad thing for healthcare. William Gunn, Synthesis. 20 March 2008.
William Gunn of Synthesis was one of the few, perhaps the only, blogger brave enough to buck the current dogma on value of GINA. After reading Marcelino Fuentes's letter in Nature, "How genetic censorship would harm everyone" (PMID:18354455), Gunn agrees, but notes that: "This is all jumping the gun a little" (I hope that's not a pun) "because actual rock-solid, high-confidence correlations between a genetic feature and a disease are still rather rare, but one thing’s for sure: The better you see what’s ahead, the better you can plan for it (whether a insurance company or an individual), and having a good plan leads to better outcomes for everyone". Gunn, however, does not have a problem with acknowledging the potential inequities: "Everyone’s worried about enabling social injustice, but it can’t really be said that our current insurance system in which many are so under-served is really all that great to begin with, so let that temper your thoughts, as well".

So, what do you think? Are Fuentes and Gunn right?

Your personal health: Crowdsourcing healthcare - Pitfalls and possibilities. Deepak Singh, bbgm. 25 March 2008.
Although Deepak Singh writes more often about technology, his comments on the progress of personalized medicine and the feasibility of predictive health are usually thought provoking. In this post Deepak reacts to the many consumer privacy concerns and asserts a firm position on data ownership:

Whether it be personal genetics, or social health, our efforts must focus on consumer education, consumer privacy and perhaps most of all data ownership. Who owns the data? That is the most important question. As has been said before in these parts, we essentially need some sort of license for personal health information that establishes ownership with the person whom the data belongs to, i.e. you or I and who has access and under what circumstances. That’s where education comes in. We need access to a lot of patient information and genetic profiles for personalized medicine to be successful.

Well said, Deepak, but do you also think that patient control and "ownership" of data will improve the pace medical research?

Bringing the genome home ... but why? Sue Trinidad, Women's Bioethics Blog. March 26, 2008,
Sue Trinidad, also a regular here in the "best ethics" series, reflects on the need for oversight in the future of genetic and personalized medicine. Trinidad responds to "Genetic Testing Gets Personal" (Rick Weiss, The Washington Post. 25 March 2008.), which profiles the consumer genetics movement and the companies, like 23andMe and Knome, that are fueling it. Trinidad cautions:

Here's a fact about all these businesses: not a one of them is subject to FDA oversight. So all these claims about health benefits, etc., resulting from their services can be completely false (or at least, not based on evidence), and nothing can be done about it. If you read even a *tiny* bit of the scientific literature on genetics and "personalized medicine," you will be struck by how few experts make such claims, at least for the near term … In the meantime, though, consumers should be protected from grossly overstated or unproven claims. Whether that falls to FDA or to someone else (though the Consumer Protection Agency probably has enough work to do at the moment -- lead paint in toys, anyone?), it seems to me the Feds ought to step up on this one.

Will information on risk genes actually change behaviour? Doug MacArthur, Genetic Future. 31 March 2008.
In this second post form Genetic Future in this edition of the "best predictive health blogs", MacArthur reflects on a recent news article in Science (PMID:18369117). The article and MacArthur are among the few that have bothered to acknowledge what may be the true downfall of predictive, personalized medicine—the patient. To some extent everyone (with or without genetic information) knows and ignores health risks. MacArthur acknowledges this and observes:

[I]f it turns out that genetic information doesn't reduce risk behaviour in the real world, then the impact on public health of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on complex disease genetics may actually be very small. I'm hopeful that this won't be the case - but it would be nice to have some actual evidence one way or the other....

- J.O.