Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Viewpoint
  • Published:

The future of direct-to-consumer clinical genetic tests

Nature Reviews Genetics volume 12, pages 511–515 (2011)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

In light of the meeting of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in March 2011 to discuss the regulation of clinical direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests, we have invited five experts to consider the best means of overseeing the ordering and interpretation of these tests. Should these tests be regulated? If so, who, if anyone, should communicate results to consumers?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Green, R. C. et al. Disclosure of APOE genotype for risk of Alzheimer's disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 245–254 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bloss, C. S., Schork, N. J. & Topol, E. J. Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 524–534 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. McBride, C. M., Koehly, L. M., Sanderson, S. C. & Kaphingst, K. A. The behavioral response to personalized genetic information: will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors? Annu. Rev. Public Health 31, 89–103 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Marteau, T. M. et al. Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing behaviours. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2010, CD007275 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Zick, C. et al. Genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease and its impact on insurance purchasing behavior. Health Aff. (Millwood) 24, 483–490 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Taylor, D. Jr et al. Genetic testing for Alzheimer's and long-term care insurance. Health Aff. (Millwood) 29, 102–108 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vernarelli, J. A. et al. Effect of Alzheimer's disease genetic risk disclosure on dietary supplement use. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 91, 1402–1407 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. LaRusse, S. et al. Genetic susceptibility testing versus family history-based risk assessment: impact on perceived risk of Alzheimer disease. Genet. Med. 7, 48–53 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Linnenbringer, E., Roberts, J., Hiraki, S., Cupples, L. & Green, R. “I know what you told me, but this is what I think:” perceived risk of Alzheimer disease among individuals who accurately recall their genetics-based risk estimate. Genet. Med. 12, 219–227 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Helgadottir, A. et al. A common variant on chromosome 9p21 affects the risk of myocardial infarction. Science 316, 1491–1493 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Samani, N. J. et al. Genomewide association analysis of coronary artery disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 357, 443–453 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mainous, A. G. et al. A coronary heart disease risk score based on patient-reported information. Am. J. Cardiol. 99, 1236–1241 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wilson, P. W. et al. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation 97, 1837–1847 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hudson, K. L. Genetic testing oversight. Science 313, 1853 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Javitt, G. & Hudson, K. Federal neglect: regulation of genetic testing. Issues Sci. Technol. 22, 59–66 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Javitt, G., Katsanis, S., Scott, J. & Hudson, K. Developing the blueprint for a genetic testing registry. Public Health Genomics 13, 95–105 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. McGuire, A. & Burke, W. Raiding the medical commons: an unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. JAMA 300, 2669–2671 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Evans, J. P. & Green, R. C. Direct to consumer genetic testing: avoiding a culture war. Genet. Med. 11, 1–2 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

R.C.G. would like to acknowledge funding from the National Human Genome Research Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Felix W. Frueh is at the Medco Research Institute, Medco Health Solutions, Inc., 7315 Wisconsin Ave. Ste 1050E, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, USA.,

    Felix W. Frueh

  2. Henry T. Greely is at the Stanford Law School, Crown Quadrangle, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305-8610, USA.,

    Henry T. Greely

  3. Division of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Robert C. Green is at the Partners Center for Personalized Genetic Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 41 Avenue Louis Pasteur, Suite 301, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.,

    Robert C. Green

  4. Department of Political Economy, Stuart Hogarth is at the Global Biopolitics Research Group, King's College London, Strand Campus, London WC2R 2LS, UK.,

    Stuart Hogarth

  5. Sue Siegel is at Mohr Davidow, 3000 Sand Hill Road, 3-290 Menlo Park, California 94025, USA.,

    Sue Siegel

Authors
  1. Felix W. Frueh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Henry T. Greely
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert C. Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stuart Hogarth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sue Siegel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Felix W. Frueh, Henry T. Greely, Robert C. Green, Stuart Hogarth or Sue Siegel.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Sue Siegel is a member of Mohr Davidow, a Silicon Valley venture-capital firm, who are shareholders in Navigenics, Inc.

Related links

Related links

FURTHER INFORMATION

Felix W. Frueh's homepage

Henry T. Greely's homepage

Robert C. Green's homepage

Stuart Hogarth's homepage

Sue Siegel's homepage

A Common Framework of Principles for Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Services (Human Genetics Commission document)

Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, concerning Genetic Testing for Health Purposes

Applying Preventive Genomic Medicine in Clinical Practice (Navigenics white paper)

Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)

Human Genetics Commission

Nature Reviews Genetics series on Translational Genetics

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society (SACGHS)

Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing (SACGT)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frueh, F., Greely, H., Green, R. et al. The future of direct-to-consumer clinical genetic tests. Nat Rev Genet 12, 511–515 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3026

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3026

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing