Advertisement

Ethical Issues in Clinical Genetics and Genomics

  • Henry T. Greely
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter sets out crucial ethical and legal issues raised both by existing targeted genetic testing and, more importantly, by the rising tide of broader genomic tests, such as whole-genome sequencing (WGS). Clinical genetic testing has been available for over 45 years, but not all the concerns have been resolved. The chapter discusses those concerns in traditional targeted testing in five categories: the decision whether to test, the tests’ accuracy, conveying the results to patients, direct-to-consumer testing, and a variety of other concerns. It then discusses intermediate forms of testing, tests such as multiplex tandem mass spectrometry and SNP arrays, which do more than provide information about a handful of genetic variants but also do not provide powerful information about many disease-linked variants. It ends by discussing how WGS and other “broad” tests will greatly exacerbate the ethical and legal problems of existing testing methods, particularly with respect to accuracy, conveying results, and confidentiality.

Keywords

Genetic testing Genome-wide association studies GWAS Single nucleotide polymorphisms SNP Whole-genome sequencing WGS Whole-exome sequencing WXS WES Food and Drug Administration FDA Laboratory-developed tests LDT Medical devices Tests Regulation Ethics 

References

  1. 1.
    Greely HT. Human genomics research: new challenges for research ethics. Perspect Biol Med. 2001;44(2):221–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greely HT. The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2007;8:343–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greely HT. Testing infant destinies. Nature. 2012;492:192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Am College Med Genet, Points to consider in the clinical application of genomic sequencing. 2012. http://www.acmg.net/StaticContent/PPG/Clinical_Application_of_Genomic_Sequencing.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2013.
  5. 5.
    Biesecker LG. Opportunities and challenges for the integration of massively parallel genomic sequencing into clinical practice: lessons from the ClinSeq project. Genet Med. 2012;14:393–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Green RC, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013;15:565–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Green RC, et al. Clinical genome sequencing. In: Ginsburg G, Willard H, editors. Genomic and personalized medicine. 2nd ed. San Diego: Elsevier; 2013. p. 102–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Manolio TA, et al. Implementing genomic medicine in the clinic: the future is here. Genet Med. 2013;15(4):258–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mayer AN, et al. A timely arrival for genomic medicine. Genet Med. 2011;13:195–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ormond KE, et al. Challenges in the clinical application of whole-genome sequencing. Lancet. 2010;375:1749–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schrijver I, et al. Opportunities and challenges associated with clinical diagnostic genome sequencing: a report of the association for molecular pathology. J Mol Diagn. 2012;15:525–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Timmermans S, Buchbinder M. Saving babies?: the consequences of newborn screening. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ng PC, et al. An agenda for personalized medicine. Nature. 2009;461:724–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gibbs JN. LDTs: the Saga continues, Update Magazine. 2017. https://www.fdli.org/2017/04/ldts-saga-continues/.
  15. 15.
    Genome Web. Lab group submits citizen petition against FDA regulation of lab developed tests. 2013. http://www.genomeweb.com/print/1237821?hq_e=el&hq_m=1588054&hq_l=1&hq_v=162223e076. Accessed 24 Aug 2013.
  16. 16.
    Gottlieb S. Remarks by Dr. Gottlieb at the American rClinical Laboratory Association Annual Meeting. 2018. https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Speeches/ucm599551.htm.
  17. 17.
    Am College Med Genet. ACMG statement on direct-to-consumer genetic testing. 2008. https://www.acmg.net/docs/ACMG_Statement_on_DTC_4.07.08.pdf..
  18. 18.
    Zettler PJ, et al. 23andMe, the Food and Drug Administration, and the future of genetic testing. JAMA. 2014;174(4):493–4.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.14706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pollack A. 23AndMe will resume giving users health data, NY Times; 2015.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    FDA. FDA allows marketing of first direct-to-consumer tests that provide genetic risk information for certain conditions. 2017. https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm551185.htm.
  21. 21.
    Weintraub A. FDA clears 23AndMe's DTC breast Cancer gene test -- but 'Buyer beware', Forbes. 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/arleneweintraub/2018/03/06/fda-clears-23andmes-dtc-breast-cancer-gene-test-but-buyer-beware/#230563a63c1e.
  22. 22.
    Nakashima E. From DNA for family, a tool to make arrests, Wash Post. 2008. At http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042002388.html.
  23. 23.
    Greely HT. “Genotype discrimination”: the complex case for some legislative protection. Univ Pa Law Rev. 2001;149:1483–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ross LF, et al. Technical report: ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children. Genet Med. 2013;15:234–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaiser J. NIH studies explore promise of sequencing babies’ genomes, Science. 2013. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/09/nih-studies-explore-promise-sequencing-babies-genomes.
  26. 26.
    Ray T. Mother's negligence suit against Quest's Athena could broadly impact genetic testing labs, Genome Web. 2016. https://www.genomeweb.com/molecular-diagnostics/mothers-negligence-suit-against-quests-athena-could-broadly-impact-genetic.
  27. 27.
    Genome Web, Foundation medicine preliminary Q4 revenues up 70 percent, Genome Web. 2018. https://www.genomeweb.com/molecular-diagnostics/foundation-medicine-preliminary-q4-revenues-70-percent.
  28. 28.
    Lam HY, et al. Performance comparison of whole genome sequencing platforms. Nat Biotech. 2012;30:78–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Government Accountability Office. Direct-to-consumer genetic tests: misleading test results are further complicated by deceptive marketing and other questionable practices. Washington, DC: GAO; 2010.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. 2013. 569 U.S 576, 133 S.Ct. 1958.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Global Alliance. Creating a global alliance to enable responsible sharing of genomic and clinical data. 2013. http://www.broadinstitute.org/news/globalalliance. Accessed 2 Sept 2013.
  32. 32.
    Hayden EC. Geneticists push for global data sharing. Nature. 2013;498:16–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, Genetics in Medicine. Am College Med Genet. 2017;19:249–55.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    van El CG, et al. Whole-genome sequencing in health care: recommendations of the European society of human genetics. Euro J Hum Gen. 2013;21:580–4.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wolf SM, et al. Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomics. Science. 2013;340:1049–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McGuire AL, et al. Ethics and genomic incidental findings. Science. 2013;340:1047–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Am College Med Genet. Incidental findings in clinical genomics: a clarification. 2013. www.acmg.net/docs/Incidental_Findings_in_Clinical_Genomics_A_Clarification.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2013.
  38. 38.
    Clayton EW, et al. Managing incidental genomic findings: legal obligations of clinicians. Genet Med. 2013;15:624–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ashley EA, et al. Clinical assessment incorporating a personal genome. Lancet. 2010;375:1525–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Law and the BiosciencesStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations