Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: How the Promise of a Personalised Approach is Being Squandered

International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics

Volumn 18, Issue , 2011, Pages 113-130

  van den Belt, Henk ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome; European Patent; Genetic Test; Government Accountability; Personalise Medicine

Indexed keywords

EID: 84888079264     PISSN: 15703010     EISSN: 22151737     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-0127-4_8     Document Type: Chapter

References (59)

1. Akrich, M. (1992) The de-scription of technical objects. In: Bijker W.E. and J. Law (eds), Shaping Technology and Building Society: Studies in Socio-Technical Change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 205–224
2. Barrett, S. (n.d), How the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 Weakened the FDA. http://www.quackwatch.com/02ConsumerProtection/dshea.html [Accessed October 2010]
3. Branca, M. (2003), Pharmacogenomix Files: The Importance of Informed Consent, Bio.IT World
4. Citizens for Health (2003), History & Accomplishments. http://website.citizens.org/showpage. cfm?pageid=9962
5. Collins, F.S. et al. (2003), A vision for the future of genomics research: A blueprint for the genomic era, Nature, 422, 835–847
6. Cornel, M.C. (2003a), Het zit in de genen?, lecture at a symposium of the Dutch Obesity Association, Lunteren, The Netherlands, 24 October 2003 slides available on website www. dikke-mensen.nl
7. Cornel, M.C. (2003b), Community Genetics: Van vermenigvuldigen naar delen, Free University Amsterdam, 30 January 2003 www.med.vu.nl/%7Ebigfiles/kga/oratiepdf.pdf
8. Crawford, C. (n.d.), Where is the Middle Ground on Dietary Supplements? http://ahha.org/articles.asp?Id=22 [Accessed October 2010]
9. Curie Institut (2001), Against Myriad Genetics’s monopoly on tests for predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer, the Institut Curie is initiating an opposition procedure with the European Patent office, Press Office. 12 September 2001 www.curie.fr/upload/presse/ myriadopposition6sept01_gb.pdf
10. Drahos, P. (1996), A Philosophy of Intellectual Property. Aldershot: Ashgate
11. Elliott, R. and T.J. Ong (2002), Science, medicine, and the future: Nutritional genomics, BMJ, 324, 1438–1442
12. European Patent Office (2004), Myriad/breast cancer patent revoked after public hearing, EPO – Press releases. www.european-patent-office.org/news/pressrel/2004_05_18_e.htm [Accessed July 2004]
13. Fogg-Johnson, N. and A. Merolli (2000), Nutrigenomics: The next wave in nutrition research, Nutraceuticals World, 3, 86–95
14. GeneWatch (2002a), Body shop’s genetic tests misleading and unethical, Press Release. 13 March 2002 http://www.genewatch.org/article.shtml?als%5Bcid%5D=396520&als%5Bitemid%5D= 469654
15. GeneWatch (2002b), Genewatch UK response to the Human Genetics Commission’s announcement of a consultation into genetic testing services, Press Release. 16 July 2002 http://www. genewatch.org/article.shtml?als%5Bcid%5D=492860&als%5Bitemid%5D=504433
16. GeneWatch (2003a), GeneWatch UK response to the human genetics commission’s genes direct report, Press Release. April 9, 2003 http://www.genewatch.org/article.shtml?als[cid]= 396520&als[itemid]=564436
17. GeneWatch (2003b), Human genetic tests: Good for your health? Leaflet June 2003 www.conversations.canterbury.ac.nz/resources/genetics/genewatch-tests-leaflet.pdf. [Accessed September 2006]
18. GeneWatch (2006a), Your diet tailored to your genes: preventing diseases or misleading marketing http://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b3545357338483c1c3d49e4/Nutrigenomics.pdf [Accessed December 2006]
19. GeneWatch (2006b), Nutrigenomics: the future of nutrition? http://www.genewatch.org/publications/briefs/brief35.pdf
20. Gollust, S.E., S.C. Hull and B.S. Wilfond (2002), Limitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing, JAMA, 288, 1762–1767
21. Goodin, R.E. (1998), Institutions and their design. In: Goodin R.E. (ed), The Theory of Institutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–53
22. Government Accountability Office (2006), Nutrigenetic Testing: Testimony before the Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate. Washington, DC, GAO-06-977T Government Accountability Office
23. Grint K. and S. Woolgar (1997), The Machine at Work: Technology, Work and Organization. Oxford: Polity Press
24. Haga, S.B., M.J. Khoury and W. Burke (2003), Genomic profiling to promote a healthy lifestyle: Not ready for prime time, Nature Genetics, 34, 347–350
25. Hull, S.C. and K. Prasad (2001), Reading between the lines: Direct-to-consumer advertising of genetic testing, Hastings Center Report, 31, 3, 33–35
26. Human Genetics Commission (2003), Genes Direct: Ensuring the Effective Oversight of Genetic Tests Supplied Directly to the Public. www.hgc.gov.uk [Accessed December 2003]
27. Institute for the Future (2001), The Future of Nutrition: Consumers Engage with Science. From Nutrigenomic Science to Personalized Nutrition: The Market in 2010. Online: www.iftf.org/docs/SR-731_The_Future_of_Nutrition.pdf
28. Javitt, G. and K. Hudson (2006), Federal neglect: Regulation of genetic testing, Issues in Science and Technology, 22, 59–66
29. Kafatos, F.C. (2002), A revolutionary landscape: The restructuring of biology and its convergence with medicine, Journal of Molecular Biology, 319, 861–867
30. Kaput, J. and R.L. Rodriguez (2004), Nutritional genomics: The next frontier in the postgenomic era, Physiological Genomics, 16, 168–177
31. Kher, U. (2006), Can a DNA test tell you how to live your life? Time, August 1, 2006
32. Ledley, F. (2001), The Future of Genomic Testing, talk given at a Forum of Pharmaceutical Industry – Apifarma, Portugal. 15–16 November 2001 www.edma-ivd.be/Articles/The_Future_ Genomic_Testing_10Dec02.doc
33. Ledley, F.D. (2002), A consumer charter for genomic services, Nature Biotechnology, 20, 767
34. Ledley, F.D. (2003), Public comment. www4.od.nih.gov/oba/SACGHS/meetings/October2003/10_ 23_Public_Comment.pdf
35. Leighton, P. (2000), Up-and-coming markets: Opportunities and issues from a Darwinian perspective, Nutraceutical World. October 2000 www.nutraceuticalsworld.com/oct001.htm
36. Mitka, M. (1998), FDA Never Promised an Herb Garden – But Sellers and Buyers Eager to See One Grow, JAMA, 280, 1554–1556
37. Myriad Genetics (2002), Myriad genetics launches direct to consumer advertising for breast cancer test, News Release. 12-09-2002, on website www.myriad.co
38. Nature Genetics (2002), Editorial: What’s brewing in genetic testing, Nature Genetics, 32, 553–554
39. Nestle, M. (2002), Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
40. Oberender, P. and J. Fleischmann (2003), Gentests aus gesundheitsökonomischer Sicht, Diskussionspapier 03–03, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Diskussionspapiere, Universität Bayreuth, April 2003
41. One Person Genetics Inc (2003), About One Person Genetics. www.onepersongenetics.com/ about.html [Accessed June 2003]
42. Paradise, J. (2004), European opposition to exclusive control over predictive breast cancer testing and the inherent implications for U.S. patent law and public policy: A case study of myriad genetics BRCA patent controversy, Food and Drug Law Journal, 59, 133–154
43. Parthasarathy, S. (2005), Architectures of genetic medicine: Comparing genetic testing for breast cancer in the USA and the UK, Social Studies of Science, 35, 1, 5–40
44. Parthasarathy, S. (2006), Reconceptualizing technology transfer: the challenge of shaping an international system of genetic testing for breast cancer. In: Guston D.H. and D. Sarewitz (eds), Shaping Science and Technology Policy: The Next Generation of Research. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 333–357
45. Pearson, H. (2002), At-home DNA tests are here, The Wall Street Journal-Europe, 25 June 2002
46. Roberts, G. and K. Grimaldi. (2003), Sciona and genetic testing, Nature Genetics, 33, 121
47. Russo, G. (2006), Home health tests are “genetic horoscopes”, Nature, 442, 497
48. SACGT (Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing) (2000), Enhancing the Oversight of Genetic Tests: Recommendations of the SACGT. July 2000, online www4.od.nih.gov/oba/sacgt/gtdocuments.html
49. Sciona (2003), Sciona Gene Screen Profiles – The Science Explained. www.sciona.com/ coresite/research/science:explained.htm [Accessed June 2003]
50. Sciona (2006a), Ethical leadership. www.sciona.com/ethical-leadership.html. [Accessed September 2006]
51. Sciona (2006b), Sciona addresses statements contained within the GAO report released Thursday, July 27, 2006’, July 31, 2006. http://www.sciona.com/industry-news-events/2006/07/sciona-addresses-statements-contained-within-the-gao-report-released-thursday-july-27-2006.html
52. van Os, Th.A.M. et al. (2002), Klinische genetica (25): erfelijke vormen van mamma-en ovariumcarcinoom’, Patient Care, 29, 3, 13–20
53. Vines, G. (2002), I see a long life and a healthy one…, New Scientist, 23 November 2002, 176, 2370, 42–45
54. Wallace, H.M. (2005), Ethics watch: Who regulates genetic tests?, Nature Reviews Genetics, 6, 517
55. Williams-Jones, B. (2002), Genetic Testing for Sale: Implications of Commercial BRCA Testing in Canada, Thesis, University of British Columbia
56. Williams-Jones, B. (2003), Where there’s a web, there’s a way: Commercial genetic testing and the internet, Community Genetics, 6, 46–57
57. Wolinsky, H. (2005), Do-it-yourself diagnosis, EMBO Reports, 6, 805–807
58. Woolgar, S. (1991), Configuring the user. The case of usability trials. In: Law J. (ed), A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: Routledge
59. Zitner, A. (2002), Firms Sell Gene tests Directly to Public, Los Angeles Times, August 11, 2002