Medical and graduate students' attitudes toward personal genomics

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 13, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 400-408

  Ormond, Kelly E ^a,b,d   Hudgins, Louanne ^a   Ladd, Jennifer M ^b   Magnus, David M ^a,b   Greely, Henry T ^a,b,c   Cho, Mildred K ^a,b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c STANFORD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

^d NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

direct to consumer testing; genetic education; personalized genomic testing; personalized genotyping

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFIDENTIALITY; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; GENETIC SCREENING; GENOMICS; GENOTYPE; GRADUATE STUDENT; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; MEDICAL STUDENT; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; RESPONSIBILITY; STUDENT ATTITUDE;

ADULT; FEMALE; GENETIC PRIVACY; GENETIC TESTING; GENETICS, MEDICAL; GENOMICS; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MALE; QUESTIONNAIRES; STUDENTS, MEDICAL; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79955884718     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31820562f6     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Hamilton A. The retail DNA test. Time Magazine. October 29, 2008. Available at: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804, 1852747-1854493-1854113,00.html. Accessed July 9, 2010
2. SACGHS. The integration of genetic technologies into health care and public health. SACGHS Progress and Priorities Report to HHS Secretary. 2009:1-44.
3. Burke W, Psaty BM. Personalized medicine in the era of genomics. JAMA 2007;298:1682-1684. (Pubitemid 47606657)
4. Hunter DJ, Khoury MJ, Drazen JM. Letting the genome out of the bottle\will we get our wish? N Engl J Med 2008;358:105-107.
5. Magnus D, Cho MK, Cook-Deegan R. Direct-to-consumer tests: beyond medical regulation? Genome Med 2009;1:17.
6. Pollack A. Walgreens delays selling personal genetic test kit. New York Times. May 12, 2010. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/health/ 13gene.html. Accessed July 9, 2010.
7. Caulfield T. Direct-to-consumer genetics and health policy: a worst-case scenario? Am J Bioeth 2009;9:48-50.
8. McGuire AL, Burke W. An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons. JAMA 2008;300: 2669-71.
9. Federal Trade Commission. At-home genetic tests: a healthy dose of skep¬ticism may be the best prescription. Washington, DC: Bureau of Consumer Protection Division of Consumer and Business Education, 2006.
10. Gollust SE, Wilfond BS, Hull SC. Direct-to-consumer sales of genetic services on the internet. Genet Med 2003;5:332-337. (Pubitemid 36998692)
11. Dougherty MJ. Closing the gap: inverting the genetics curriculum to ensure an informed public. Am J Hum Genet 2009;85:6-12.
12. Metcalf MP, Tanner TB, Buchanan A. Effectiveness of an online curriculum for medical students on genetics, genetic testing and counseling. Med Educ Online 2010;15.
13. Wiener CM, Thomas PA, Goodspeed E, Valle D, Nichols DG. "Genes to society"\the logic and process of the new curriculum for the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Acad Med 2010;85:498-506.
14. Fishman J. The age of personal genomics. Paper presented at the 5th International DNA Sampling Conference. Banff, September 18, 2009.
15. McGuire AL, Diaz CM, Wang T, Hilsenbeck SG. Social networkers' atti-tudes toward direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Am J Bioeth 2009;9:3-10.
16. Kutz G. Direct-to-consumer genetic tests: misleading test results are further complicated by deceptive marketing and other questionable practices. Tes¬timony before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives. Washing-ton, DC: US Government Accountability Office, 2010.