Oklahoma Legislature Requires Express Consent to Retain Newborn Blood Spots

During the past several months, states continue splitting on the issue of how to approach their state health department’s retention and research use of newborn blood spots (NBS).

On September 13, The Edmond Sun ran an article on Oklahoma’s enrolled Senate Bill 1250, a new law that prevents the state health department from storing and using NBS. The text of the law reads:

“A laboratory, medical facility, hospital, or birthing place is prohibited from the unathorized storage, transferring, use, or databasing of DNA from any newborn child without express parental consent.

It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist…”

Sen. Nichols explained he sponsored the bill as a deliberate pre-emptive measure in response to ethical and privacy concerns related to unauthorized “databasing” and use of NBS in other states. According to Sharon Vaz, the Oklahoma State Department of Health genetics coordinator, Oklahoma only retains the samples for 42 days and does not have plans for long term NBS retention or to use the NBS for research purposes.

Oklahoma’s law demonstrates that different jurisdictions are arriving at starkly divergent interpretations of seemingly simple definitions such as what is or is not encompassed in the meaning of DNA. SB 1250 refers to storing or using DNA, and Sen. Nichols unequivocally explains that he intends this to encompass the retention of NBS- a blood sample. This interpretation is significant because it means the law will use the term DNA to include biological materials from which DNA can be derived.

Unlike Sen. Nichols’ inclusive approach, in late August the Court of Appeals in Minnesota affirmed that NBS do not fall within the definition of “genetic information.” We previously wrote on the Bearder case here. Minnesota has determined that biological samples (such as NBS) that contain DNA and genetic information are not genetic information.

This distinction of separating the source of raw materials (the blood) used for research from the substance of the raw materials (the DNA) is also playing out in the stem cell legal battles- although here, the debate centers around using embryos to create embryonic stem cells v. research using embryonic stem cells. In both arenas, interpreting uncertainty or disagreement of how to apply a law to favor rsearch connects to the decision to splice parts of the process to circumvent barriers to using raw materials.

SB 1250 attempts to rectify several terms that have been disputed when determining the rules for retaining and using biological materials from newborns. Although Sen. Nichols references the law with regard to NBS, the language broadly refers to “DNA from any newborn child,” which would include NBS as well as other biological samples such as umbilical cord blood that contains DNA. This would mean that if an Oklahoma hospital or a partnering research entity wanted to retain and use other biological samples containing DNA from the newborn, the hospital would need to seek parental consent. Furthermore, this law clarifies that the hospital and state health department are not exempt from compliance with the law under a research exception.

Interestingly, the text refers to the law as necessary to preserve the “public peace, health and safety” in Oklahoma. The law is set to be codified in the Oklahoma statute in the same location as crimes consisting of public disturbances, safety hazards, and physical violations against one’s person- examples of tangible harm to indivduals and society at large. This classification itself nods a recognition to the Beleno case in Texas, where plaintiffs’ emphatically argued unauthorized retention of NBS constituted a serious privacy violation and an unlawful seizure of one’s deeply private medical and genetic information.

Whether other state legislatures and health departments agree with Oklahoma’s requirement for express parental consent or the current state of “emergency,” this law reminds us that each jurisdiction should adopt a prospective law or departmental policy to address these questions in a deliberate manner.

--Katherine Drabiak-Syed

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

Havasupai Tribe and Arizona State University Settlement Agreement: ASU to Return the Blood Samples

On April 21, 2010 the New York Times reported that the Havasupai tribe and Arizona State University (ASU) arrived at a settlement agreement relating to litigation over ASU’s alleged misuse of the Havasupai tribe’s blood samples originally collected for diabetes research. (Visit our forthcoming Human Specimen Collection, Biobanking, and Genetic Research Law and Policy Update for more information on the case.)

After millions of dollars spent on litigation in various suits, the tribe and ASU entered into the settlement agreement in March of this year. The settlement contains several provisions including details for ASU’s performance obligations such as:

(1) ASU will pay the plaintiffs a sum of $700,000;

(2) ASU will return all blood samples in its possession; and

(3) ASU will return documents such as lab books and genealogy materials containing research derived from the blood samples, it will direct IRBs at the universities involved in the suit not to approve ongoing or new research using the samples, and it will provide the tribe a list of entities to which it previously transferred the samples.

The settlement agreement also set forth a creative five year collaborative between ASU and the tribe designed to address the tribe’s needs in the areas of education, health and nutrition, economic development, architecture, engineering, and legal governance. Several of these provisions include pursuing funding opportunities to build a high school near the reservation, partnering ASU nursing students to provide clinical care in Supai village, and working with the tribe to develop business plans related to its tourism programs.

Like many other settlements, this agreement specified a monetary exchange. ASU's transfer of $700,000 (split among the forty-one plaintiffs) seems nominal compared to plaintiffs’ request for $25 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages. However, unlike other agreements, the money was arguably not the central concern here and would never alone be sufficient to remedy plaintiffs’ alleged damages without addressing the use and possession of the blood samples.

The return of the samples and research materials highlights several important issues that suggest our current standards and assumptions governing biobanking research are inadequate to address the needs of all research subjects, especially if blood and DNA is particularly significant to a group's cultural values and sense of identity.

First, subjects must be fully informed when they provide consent to use their blood for genetic research and the scope of the research should not exceed the original consent. Second, using the blood for purposes beyond the scope of the original consent may present serious dignitary concerns that researchers may overlook because the substance of these concerns may not even register as a possible harm or risk. Indeed, one of the ASU researchers maintained she was advancing important research and refered to the tribe's claims as "hysterical." Lastly, the importance of how the samples are (mis)used can be so vital to a particular group that return of the samples may be the only mechanism to fully remedy the group’s alleged dignitary harms.

-Katherine Drabiak-Syed