Comments on: The Genetic Mess in California – A Round-Up, and My Thoughts

By: Pinklady

Pinklady — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 10:35:17 +0000

Thanks for the informative sharing information. I think that GGists should stick to tests which do not allow for the positive identification of the persons tested.

By: HR Blog

HR Blog — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:41:15 +0000

I believe genetic testing is wrong unless a doctor approves it. There are probably several other ways to improve the quality of testing without causing problems. HR Blog's last blog post..Employee Handbook Essentials

By: Genetic Companies in Trouble in California « ScienceRoll

Genetic Companies in Trouble in California « ScienceRoll — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:57:45 +0000

[...] The Genetic Mess in California – A Round-Up, and My Thoughts (The Genetic Genealogist) [...]

By: Mr. Gunn

Mr. Gunn — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:45:33 +0000

I don't think it would, Blaine. CLIA certification and validated reporting methods would do that. Making people get a doctor's permission to get the test done would make doctors the decision makers regarding which services are high quality and which aren't, but they're clearly the wrong people for the job. The average GP is way too busy treating patients. Some would categorically deny permission so they don't potentially expose themselves to liability, and some would simply rubber stamp the form for whatever service was recommended by the AMA or their state's health board or whoever the buck gets passed to. That doesn't protect consumers any better than requiring CLIA certification, it just changes who's taking responsibility for protecting consumers. Why shouldn't this continue to be the FDA's job? Nobody wants profiteers selling dubious results to a credulous public, but there are good players and bad players in the field. Simply requiring CLIA certification should be enough to run off the bottom-feeders without creating a suffocating layer of bureaucracy. Mr. Gunn's last blog post..Thompson Scientific has a closed science search engine.

By: 2007 April 27 « Pimm - Partial immortalization

2007 April 27 « Pimm - Partial immortalization — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 05:51:22 +0000

[...] on Mason-Dixon line in the l…Steven Murphy MD on Innovation stop: “All th…The Genetic Mess in … on Future stop: California health…Deepak on Halcyon Molecular: whole [...]

By: Jacques Beaugrand

Jacques Beaugrand — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:30:07 +0000

My opinion is that GGists should stick to tests which do not allow for the positive identification of the persons tested but only of their patrilineage and matrilineage. Haplo tests serve just that purpose. GGists do not need in their work of simple genealogy/ancestrology the use of tests relying on diploid information which permit individual identification.
If the aim is to do genealogy, then there is no need for tests which are normally reserved to the medico-legal domain or to biomolecular genome research.

Their use poses at least a deontological problem.

If people get tested in order to gain knowledge about their atavisms, about their genetic makeup and especially about their susceptibilities to certain “maladies”/behavioral tendencies, then their motivation is not genuinely that of Genetical Genealogy.

I would prefer that test results relying on diploid information not be considered nor discussed by GG which is after all a scientific hobby, but be left to another discipline which remains to be given a name.

We cannot fully imagine for the moment the societal consequences of letting ordinary people (wrongly) cultivate the impression of knowing their own genome and that of others.

By: PredictER Blog: The Best Predictive Health Ethics Blogs - June 2008

PredictER Blog: The Best Predictive Health Ethics Blogs - June 2008 — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:39:57 +0000

[...] for a good overview of the news and blogging on the subject, see Blaine Bettinger’s recent post The Genetic Mess in California – A Round-Up, and My Thoughts (30 June 2008) at The Genetic Genealogist.Employee WellnessMatt Mealiffe of DNA and You writes in [...]

By: Blaine Bettinger

Blaine Bettinger — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:28:37 +0000

Thank you for the nice comments everyone. Steve, I hope you’re right about the uninsured finding ways to get tested.

Mr. Gunn, I think that the doctor’s permission requirement would help weed out non-scientific genetic testing, but I also believe there are more efficient ways of ensuring quality.

By: Mr. Gunn

Mr. Gunn — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:49:21 +0000

In requiring a doctor's referral, aren't people overlooking the fact that there's lots of non-disease related information revealed by SNP profiling? Why would you want to put an overworked doctor who isn't a genetic testing expert(and doesn't want to be) in charge of this? I understand the point about protecting people from being taken advantage of by unregulated practitioners and scared by dubious information, but I don't see how requiring a doctor's permission will help this. Mr. Gunn's last blog post..Thompson Scientific has a closed science search engine.

By: Steven Murphy MD

Steven Murphy MD — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:22:14 +0000

Misha,
My barber as a kid used to say that to me….
Blaine, excellent round up. Thank you for not blasting me…… BTW the uninsured thing is a stretch. There are tons of minute clinics, Npt For Profit hospitals with clinics and doctors doing pro bono work for the indigent and uninsured. This would apply here as well.

-Steve
http://www.thegenesherpa.blogspot.com

Steven Murphy MD’s last blog post..Good Morning America and Our CliniCast(TM)