How Widespread Prenatal Testing for Microdeletions Can Hurt Patients and Why the Genetic Testing Industry Needs More Accountability
By Katie Stoll,
Gene Cuisine
| 01. 04. 2022
image "Blood Samples" by Daniel Sone from the website of the National Cancer Institute
The New York Times published an important investigative piece this week, exploring concerns about expanded prenatal genetic screening. Specifically, the article focuses on the practice of prenatal screening for the possibility of a microdeletion condition in the fetus. The authors Sarah Kliff and Aatish Bhatia walk readers through some of the microdeletions that are often included as part of prenatal cell free DNA screening and discuss issues with the way these tests are marketed as providing accurate results and certainty when in fact most positive screen results end up being false positive. The article states that in interviews,
“14 patients who got false positives said the experience was agonizing. They recalled frantically researching conditions they’d never heard of, followed by sleepless nights and days hiding their bulging bellies from friends. Eight said they never received any information about the possibility of a false positive, and five recalled that their doctor treated the test results as definitive.”
The results of this investigation into patients’ experience with these...
Related Articles
It’s been a busy couple of months in biopolitics, with developments in the US, UK, China, Japan, and implicitly on Mars. Time for a brief roundup.
• • •
Bioethics needs an update
The National Research Act is now 50 years old. It was signed into law on July 12, 1974, as a direct response to publicity about the 1932 “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” The Hastings Bioethics Forum celebrated its anniversary with an...
By Robert Resta, The DNA Exchange | 07.22.2024
Medical geneticists and genetic counselors have an often complicated and at times tense relationship with people with disabilities, their families, advocates, and scholars. Geneticists are strong advocates and supporters for all of their patients, regardless of their abilities and disabilities...
By Katherine Bourzac, Nature | 07.10.2024
Image courtesy National Human Genome Research Institute
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is supposed to encourage effective medical advances while also ensuring that patients and research subjects are protected. This dual mandate demands tricky judgment calls that are made more difficult by outside pressures of several kinds, political, judicial, and especially commercial. This April story at Bloomberg examines one deeply troubling pattern of regulatory capture:
Americans Are Paying Billions to Take Drugs That Don’t Work
Companies are increasingly...