The NHS should run a mile from the genome sequencing goldrush
By David King,
The Guardian
| 02. 07. 2019
Genomics England’s plans to move into paid-for genome sequencing of healthy people has done more than raise eyebrows in the scientific world. Last week a parade of the genomics great and good – who had clearly not been informed of the plans announced last week by Matt Hancock, the health secretary – wrote to the Times saying this would “create two-tier access to services, where people who can pay are able to access services that are denied to those who cannot”.
Others have pointed out that the plans will create extra pressure on GPs, who will have to deal with a flood of “worried well” patients coming to them with DNA test results.
The idea is that new “genomics volunteers” will pay for the sequencing and for its interpretation, while agreeing to donate the results in anonymous form to the Genomics England databank. The fact that the volunteers are being asked to pay for test results, delivered by a healthcare provider rather than a private genetic-testing company, must give them the impression that there are personal health benefits to...
Related Articles
By Sarah Kliff and Azeen Ghorayshi, The New York Times | 07.15.2024
By Elizabeth Chuck, NBC News | 07.09.2024
A Netflix docuseries has put a spotlight on the unregulated world of sperm donation, particularly the lack of stopgap measures that might prevent donors who have been banned by one country from simply going elsewhere to donate more.
Released earlier...
By Beth Duff-Brown, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research | 07.12.2024
The debate over in vitro fertilization (IVF) has become a hot-button policy and political issue, despite the medical procedure to help people become pregnant having been mainstream in the United States for nearly half a century.
The Alabama Supreme Court ...
By Peter Aldhous, Scientific American | 07.02.2024
In June a notice posted on the website of the journal Nature set a new scientific record. It withdrew what is now the most highly cited research paper ever to be retracted.
The study, published in 2002 by Catherine Verfaillie...