Risks of online genetic testing
The Geneforum poll on DNA tests has been running for quite a while. Currently, we have votes from 300 people. Of these, 44% have purchased or would purchase a DNA test. A similar percentage (44%) selected one of the "negative" options. As we might expect, few people added a comment.
Whatever your answer was, you may be interested in the following article, posted today on the Hindu News Update Service. The article actually came from London's Guardian News Service. Naturally, I latched on to it, since I am quite leary of genetic testing available online. Here's some of what the author James Randerson said.
The genetic testing services available at present can't give you the power to make effective and ethical decisions about how such tests might impact your life- though they might aspire to, or insist they can.
As I described earlier in a blog entry, the reliability of four companies was tested by a US Government Accountability Office investigation released in July (http://tinyurl.com/gzxur). Fourteen "different" samples--which actually came from only two subjects--were sent to these companies and the results compared. TheGAO's damning report shows that the companies - which charged between $89 and $395 for the tests - provided inconsistent results and offered vague and misleading advice to their "clients".
The companies?
- Suracell from Montclair, New Jersey
- Sciona Inc of Boulder, Colorado
- Genaissance Pharmaceuticals of Newton, Massachusetts
- Genox and Genelex Corp of Seattle, Washington
Randerson's report goes on to describe pharmacogenetics--a field which is predicted to tailor treatment to a person's genetic makeup. I'll write more about that in the next entry.
To see all of Sanderson's article, go to http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/008200609070321.htm
Marie Godfrey, PhD