Myths, misconceptions and myopia: Searching for clarity in the debate about the regulation of consumer genetics

13Citations
Citations of this article
40Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The new wave of companies offering genome scans direct-to-consumer (DTC) has prompted commentary from scientists, clinicians, bioethicists and those interested in the ethical, legal and social issues arising from genomics. It has thus brought a far wider range of actors into a longstanding debate about the regulation of genetic tests. However, some of the recent discussion is characterised by misunderstanding of the regulatory landscape, a failure to grasp the lessons of the past and lack of clarity of thought. In this commentary I challenge a series of myths and misconceptions which plague current academic and policy discussion: the conflation of regulation and proscription; the failure to recognise that DTC companies are gatekeepers; the assumption that requiring a medical intermediary for testing is paternalistic; the belief that online services cannot be regulated; the presumption that we must avoid genetic exceptionalism; the idea that policy is lagging behind science or that it is too soon to act; and finally, the view that DTC genetics is a reality we have to adapt to. © 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hogarth, S. (2010, June). Myths, misconceptions and myopia: Searching for clarity in the debate about the regulation of consumer genetics. Public Health Genomics. https://doi.org/10.1159/000313330

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free