/ Health

Genetic testing – poor principles leave consumers exposed

Gene testing

Genetic testing has great potential to improve the early detection of truly horrible diseases. But the recent principles set to protect consumers from useless tests aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

Over the past 10 years the identification of genes associated with particular diseases has become a bit of a gold rush, leading companies to sell genetic tests that claim to predict the likeliness of developing a disease.

But there are currently very few gene/disease associations simple enough for scientists to make reliable predictions. Tests that do offer a medically ‘useful’ prediction are freely available through the NHS, accompanied by an excellent support network.

Companies out to make profits from genetic tests

Recognising the money to be made from exploiting consumer’s interests in their genes, companies, such as 23andMe and Navigenics, also offer genetic tests.

The key difference between the NHS and these companies is not just the exchange of cash, but also the actual usefulness of the tests on offer. Many of them offer little more than a fortune teller’s guess at the chances of developing a disease.

So how can they get away with selling these tests? Well, current European and UK regulations don’t require the companies to demonstrate that genetic tests are medically useful.

Gene Genie, your system’s a mess

In the face of this regulatory black hole, the Human Genetics Commission (the government’s key advisory body on human genetics) last week published a set of Principles designed to act as a code of practice to the companies selling genetic tests direct-to-consumers.

These Principles aimed to improve this market for consumers and included guidance over what tests should be sold, the need for clear information on what the tests can do, advice on what to expect from their results and proof of gene/disease associations.

We believe that these Principles fall well short of their purpose and on the rare occasion when companies offer tests with some credibility (such as those available freely on the NHS) we have serious concerns over whether these should be offered to consumers directly at all.

Who should offer predictive genetic tests?

These tests should only be available to consumers through medical professionals who can ensure that the patient fully understands the implications of the results and can offer guidance on further courses of treatment.

And worse, the lack of any form of enforcement body to ensure these companies actually adhere to these Principles, means that they’re completely meaningless.

We’re not calling for excessive regulation of a fledgling industry, and we believe that if consumers want access to information contained in their genes they have every right to do so. But it must be ensured by industry. And if this fails, through statutory regulations, where:

  • Consumers are well informed prior to consenting to testing;
  • Companies act responsibly and transparently;
  • And only medical professionals offer predictive tests for serious genetic disorders.

Genetic test or horoscope? Without better consumer protection, there’s no way of knowing.

Comments
Guest
D. Proctor says:
30 August 2017

I’ve had the gene test offered by Ancestry UK, which is processed in Ireland. It complemented my work on the family tree. I’m not in a position to check the results, but feel that the interpretation of the results has distinctively American viewpoint. Ancestry’s parent company is based in the USA.
I’ve been looking for a second DNA test but have serious doubts about the products that are available. Does Which? have any plans to review the current DNA tests. That would be very helpful.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Guest

As D.Procter has pointed out this is a USA based company , as such it is open to US government authorities to log it into their “Big Data ” database . All our medical records are and will be “shipped ” to America to end up as recipients of third p[arty emails etc , for those that dont believe me I already have ( in external storage ) HMG trailing transference methods of our medical data to the USA —and getting it hacked ( big cover-up ) . I would not advice anybody to provide DNA evidence as it also gets stored for future criminal investigation , even minor ones . One small country is embarrassed , its very nationalists and bombastic in its religious views but when its citizens were DNA tested only 6 % actually originated in that country , I will not name it in case I am accused of something serious but it was their own Professors who supplied the evidence.

Profile photo of PatrickTaylor
Guest

I believe you must be referring to the Vatican City Duncan. : )

However no ned to be coy about naming the country as hints fall rather flat. Singapore would be a safe bet I reckon.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Guest

Some religions you cant talk about I need to tread a fine-line Patrick , I have had to learn this through actual experience governments attack you and I am getting too old to keep on re-installing systems and being taken off the web. I dont like it but I am alone so I know my limit’s of actions . The problem with being attacked it supplies you with information about who is doing it , by that I mean who mis being payed to do it. Thats their problem they cant keep secret and attack you any army has to show itself eventually and show its strategy and attack thats when its at its most weakest . Find out who you cant criticise then you know who really rules over you -Voltaire that is a dangerous statement nowadays. .

Profile photo of Ian
Guest

Watson and Crick have a lot to answer for. Yes – if we’re going to have DNA testing it not only needs careful supervision but it also needs detailed education for consumers on how to make sense of percentages and risk. Few people can make sense of meteorological percentage possibilities so how they cope when warned that they might be carrying some potential genetic condition is anyone’s guess.

Less a Genie’s bottle more a Pandora’s box, this sort of testing is only the tip of a rather sinister iceberg. Recombinant DNA is the really worrying outcome, I suspect.