My e-mail has been buzzing all day with messages about efforts to get the Genetic Information Discrimination Act to the floor of the Senate. Word is this will happen tomorrow. If you haven't expressed your opinion yet through your Senators, please call or e-mail them ASAP. You can find them quickly by typing "state name" plus Senators into your favorite search engine. That will get you their preferred e-mail form and their contact phone number.
According to an article that appeared today in The New York Times,
The Center for American Progress has an excellent (long) article on genetic nondiscrimination, wih the title, Genetic Non-Discrimination, Policy Considerations in the Age of Genetic Medicine. The artcile represents a summary of a full report, also available on the website.
After a brief introduction to genomes and genetic testing, they state:
For individual Americans, this growth of genomic data means more accurate personal genetic information will become available to them, their physicians and, yes, their insurance companies, to make perhaps monumental health care decisions. This new information could well be a blessing or a curse, depending on how it is handled by patients, their doctors and their insurers. That’s why legislation based on the best bioethical principles needs to be enacted by Congress this year.
After considerable efforts from hundreds of organizations trying to protect your genetic privacy, it's time for you to act.
GINA, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, is finally supposed to be debated on the Senate floor this week, perhaps on Monday the 21st (April). Here's how you can help:
1. To find out whether one or both of your senators is a cosponsor, check at
2. If your senator is a cosponsor, call and thank your senator for supporting this bill. Phone numbers are easy to find at http://geneticalliance.org/senator.list
A number of government agencies--FDA, CMS (Medicare/Medicaid), most states--have chosen not to address standards for genetic testing. So, it's somewhat ironic that a company in the industry today proposed standards and asked for input from the public.
Here are the standards they are presenting soon at a Personalized Genomics conference:
The company's proposed standards for personal genomic services will
include commitments to 10 specific criteria for performance, service and
1. Validity - of genetic association, epidemiological and clinical
information provided through the service and used to determine
predispositions for included health conditions
2. Accuracy and quality - of testing, with all samples processed in a
reputable CLIA-certified lab and in accordance with state and federal
regulation, with guaranteed analytical accuracy of 99 percent or more,
and with a "100 percent call rate" guarantee
3. Clinical relevance - of information provided, using only genetic risk
factors that show consistent effect sizes in multiple sample
populations of the same ethnicity; with supporting information vetted
by a team of experienced, clinically trained reviewers, and with
content screened or provided by leading medical institutions or
reputable, independent content providers
4. Actionability - associated with conditions included in the service, to
ensure that the promise of improved outcomes over time can be met, or
that at a minimum there is valid clinical or scientific information
available to demonstrate an ability to prevent, delay or enhance
treatment options for an included health condition
5. Access to genetic counseling - to ensure that each individual can
speak directly to a counselor, at their convenience, to understand the
implications of their particular profile, and that they can have
access to continued counsel over time as new findings or information
may change or expand their particular genetic predispositions
6. Security and privacy - to ensure that only the individual member has
access to their particular profile, and has complete control over
granting access to others; operating in a manner consistent with HIPAA
regulations; and using the latest measures to protect and safeguard
all member data, at a level at least consistent with what leading
financial institutions use
7. Ownership of genetic information - to acknowledge each member's right
to access their own genetic information and record
8. Physician education and engagement - to sponsor and ensure physician
access to relevant genomics-focused continuing medical education; to
incorporate specific tools into the service that enable physicians
direct access to general information on latest advancements in
genomics; and to enable members to share specific, personal genetic
information with health professionals in a productive way, should they
choose to do so
9. Transparency - regarding relative applicability, limitations and
specificity of genetic risk information, as well as assuring that
personal or aggregated genetic information will never be shared
without the full knowledge and consent of each individual member
10. Measurement - to assess the impact of the service on health outcomes
over time, and member response and experiences with the service in
the near and long term
I do not normally name companies, but today I applaud Navigenics, of Redwood Shores, California, for taking this critical step in bringing standards up for discussion.
Although I am a regular listener to public radio, I tend to keep my dial on the local all-classical station, avoiding the many talk shows on the statewide public radio station. So, I keep forgetting to listen to Science Friday with Ira Flatow. Luckily for me--and you--NPS provides the full broadcast for listeners to access at any time.
All you have to do is register on the NPR site, by giving your name, age, e-mail address, and a password you select. You don't even have to wait for acceptance or acknowledgement from the website.
Once you have logged in, you can select a specific program (Science Friday) to hear and click on other audios to get the particular one you want. Or, of course, you can go directly there and scroll down to select the April 4 edition of Talk of the Nation: Science Friday.
I have just decided that I can afford to return to being a real scientist--one who reads original publications, not just extracts and reports on them in public media. For some time, I have known that Johns Hopkins allows me, as an alumnus, access to its libraries online. I just haven't really dug in and used that privilege.
A recent reminder, and the helpful person who sent me my alumna ID number, allowed me to sign up and access the real article I described in my blog posted less than an hour ago! Now, I'm really in business and can read the original stuff rather than always relying on "translations". Sure, I could go to one or more of the local universities--there are many in Portland--but, I'm essentially lazy and have a short attention span. By the time I managed to get there, I would have forgotten what I was looking for.
A mother with Rh- blood who gives birth to an Rh+ infant may potentially develop antibodies to the Rh factor, and the resulting antibodies could cause considerable risk to the next developing fetus. To counteract such a situation, mothers who are Rh- and have an Rh+ mate are traditionally treated at delivery to prevent the development of the Rh antibodies.
The report of an article (Finning K et al. BMJ, 2008;10:1136) in the British Medical Journal describes the study of a new, non-invasive genetic test for the Rh status of a developing fetus. It uses "cell-free fetal DNA present in the maternal blood." The test, according to the report, had a 95.7% success rate when results were compared with the actual blood group tested at birth. False negatives (identifying an Rh+ fetus as Rh-) were "below 0.2% (3 out of approaching 1900 cases)". In these situations, the mother should have been treated but was not. If these mothers were exposed to Rh+ cells from the baby at birth and they became pregnant with another Rh+ fetus, their antibodies might cause a serious hemolytic disease, destroying blood cells in the fetus at or before birth.
Sometimes I'm more in tune with the day's news than I realize. I checked out a news lead about two hours after my last blog entry and found that MSNBC news is today announcing the expansion of the availability of the "drugstore" paternity test. Here are the links you may follow for more information:
a news article: Who's Your Daddy?
a video: DIY paternity test debuts
Genetic testing may already be available on your drugstore shelf. A prominent chain, whose name does not begin with "Wal", is offering DNA test kits in some markets. These are available in Oregon (according to sales flyers), but not online. I don't know how many states have them, or whom you have to ask in the store to get one.
I am contacting the company to see if they will tell me whose test they use, so I can better judge the quality of the testing offered.
Now, if you live in a small town, you may have to use the ploy people often use in a small town: go to another town to purchase your test kit if you don't want anyone you know to know what you're doing.
This election season, the word on everybody’s lips is “change.” After any two-term presidency, people are eager for a new face, new ideas, and new policies. Now, with primary campaign season well underway, the field has narrowed for both parties. Debates and national interest have swung from national security, to immigration issues, to economics, and more. But “science” issues, like government funding for research, have been conspicuously absent from the candidates’ debates. Even global warming has been a little-touched topic, couched in concerns of national energy security, when it is addressed.