Genes and Marketing
Most genetic tests are currently only available through specialist genetic testing services in the NHS, where they are mainly used to diagnose genetic disorders or identify people whose children might inherit such disorders. However, a number of companies are already looking at ways of expanding the market for genetic tests by selling them on the internet, in high street stores, through private GPs or via alternative healthcare providers.
Genetic tests are not regulated there is no independent assessment of the claims made by commercial companies. This means that people could easily be misled about their health.
Genetic testing services require customers to provide a sample of their DNA (usually using a simple mouth swab) which is then sent to a laboratory. The laboratory will look for rare mutations or common variations in the person's genetic make-up. Customers may then receive any or all of the following:
- predictions about their, or their children's, risk of future illness;
- health advice about their lifestyle or which vitamin supplements or medicines to take;
- products that are claimed to be tailored to their individual genetic make-up.
You can read about why GeneWatch thinks these genetic horoscopes are a dangerous myth here. This GeneWatch briefing explains the commercial interests behind the plan, and the link with the plans to build a central database of electronic medical records in the NHS (the 'Spine') or the alternative proposed approach of allowing Google to manage these records. The ultimate aim is to market products to people based on their medical data and genetic make-up, massively expanding the healthcare market - for special foods (called 'functional foods'), medicines, skin creams and other tests and services - to the healthy population.
The science behind this idea is deeply questionable. Some of the evidence for this is highlighted below.
The New York Times has published an article about why genes show limited value in predicting common diseases. New Scientist has reported a study which shows that the results of commercial gene tests are unreliable.
Scientists from the Netherlands and from the US National Office of Public Health Genomics have published an investigation of seven companies highlighted by GeneWatch as selling misleading gene tests. They concluded that "There is insufficient scientific evidence to conclude that genomic profiles are useful in measuring genetic risk for common diseases or in developing personalized diet and lifestyle recommendations for disease prevention".
UK scientists and medics have also warned about the lack of regulation of tests which try to predict the risk of disease in healthy people, including genetic susceptibility tests. A report by Sense about Science has warned that "There is a growing business selling new genetic tests based on very preliminary research - the evidence is far too flimsy to be accepted by evidence-based medical practice".
The Chair of the Primary Care Genetics Society has warned GPs of the potential dangers of genetic testing kits sold over the counter or via the internet.
A Sunday Times investigation, showing that commercial companies give conflicting genetic risk assessments based on the same DNA, also highlights how people cannot trust the genetic information they are being given.
New Scientist has reported a study showing how commercial gene tests give misleading predictions of genetic risk.
Subsequently, a study by Craig Venter and collegues, published in Nature, found major discrepencies in genetic risk predictions made by different companies (see the press report and Nature's Editorial).
A study in the British Medical Journal, published in January 2010, reported that that genetic testing provides no real help in predicting the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a major risk factor for heart disease. The British Heart Foundation advised people not to buy genetic home screening tests for type 2 diabetes or heart disease.
The Times and New York Times have reported the difficulties being faced by companies attempting to market gene tests to sceptical consumers.
Customers are reportedly underwhelmed by direct-to-consumer genetic test results in the US and the inclusion of large numbers of potential diseases in the US newborn screening programme is leading to large numbers of false positive results.
A US FDA panel has warned that gene tests can be misleading and need more oversight. The American Medical Association has sent a letter to the US FDA highlighting the need for regulation of such tests. Reports about the limitations of such tests continue, including from some customers.
Reports from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and 2020Health have questioned the reliability and usefulness of tests for genetic susceptibility to common diseases
In the journal Science, scientists have called for gene tests to be regulated following findings that results can be misleading. See articles on Forbes and Bloomberg.
In 2011, studies presented at the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) found that Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) genetic tests give inaccurate predictions of disease risks and that many European geneticists believe that some of them should be banned. Read the ESHG press release and the Guardian article.
Please note that information about specific companies may change after the publication date. For example, the US company Great Smokies Diagnostics Laboratory (GSDL) has changed its name to Genova Diagnostics. The UK company Health Interlink has asked us to point out that it severed its ties with GSDL over three years ago, shortly after its tests were launched.
Recent Articles
-
in ReportsYour Diet Tailored to your Genes: Preventing Diseases or Misleading Marketing?
16th May 2006
Resources
- Consultations
- GeneWatch UK response to EC consultation on gene test regulation 20th September 2010
- GeneWatch UK submission to the HGC consultation on direct-to-consumer genetic testing (4th December 2009) 4th December 2009
- GeneWatch response to the Nuffield consultation on medical profiling (21st July 2009) 21st July 2009
- GeneWatch response to the consultation on the Medical Devices Directives 4th July 2008
- Submission to House of Lords 'Genomic Medicine' Inquiry 21st April 2008
- GeneWatch UK response to MHRA consultation 29th October 2007
- External links
- Eurogentest: Genetic Tests for Health Purposes (3rd December 2012)
- Revision of the medical device directives (September 2012)
- GeneValues Blog: Patently unclear - 23andme's position on DNA patenting (13th January 2012)
- European Society of Human Genetics (press release): Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests Neither Accurate in Their Predictions nor Beneficial to Individuals, Study Suggests (30th May 2011)
- AMA to FDA: Genetic Testing Should Be Conducted by Qualified Health Professionals [Press Release] (23rd February 2011)
- Americal Medical Associetion (AMA): Re: Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel of the FDA Medical Devices Advisory Committee (23rd February 2011)
- Nuffield Council on Bioethics: Personalised Healthcare (12th Otober 2010)
- 2020Health: Health, humanity and justice: Emerging health technologies in the 21st Century (October 2010)
- European Society on Human Genetics: Statement on direct-to-consumer genetic testing
-
German Human Genetic Examination Act (April 2009)
Unofficial translation of the German Act which requires standards to be set for genetic testing, including the involvement of specially qualified medical professionals. The Act also bans genetic discrimination by insurers and employers.
- European Parliament: Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA): Direct to Consumer Genetic Testing (November 2008)
- Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition: Statement on Genetic Testing (October 2008)
- Briefings
-
GeneWatch UK Briefing: IVD Regulation: problems still not solved
7th May 2013
- GeneWatch briefing: Examples of genes and common diseases (July 2009) 6th July 2009
- GeneWatch UK briefing: Is 'early health' good health? (20th April 2009) 20th April 2009
- Examples of genes in tests marketed by Genetic Health (UK) 6th November 2007
- Genetic Health: evidence to the MHRA 28th October 2007
-
Genetic Health: evidence to the MHRA (Appendix)
28th October 2007
-
Briefing 35: Nutrigenomics: the future of nutrition?
1st March 2006
-
Three reasons not to buy the NicoTestTM genetic test
7th January 2005
-
MPs' Briefing: Human Genetics No. 4: Human genetic testing and the influence of the pharmaceutical industry
1st September 2004
-
Briefing 28: Genetic Tests and Health
1st September 2004
- Regulating Human Genetic Tests: Ten Key Questions 1st April 2003
- Genovations Genetic Test Kits 1st July 2002
-
Briefing 18: Genetics and 'Predictive Medicine': Selling Pills, Ignoring Causes.
1st May 2002
- MPs' Briefing: Human Genetics No. 2 - Unregulated Genetic Testing on the High Street and the Internet 1st April 2002
- Genetic testing on the High Street 1st March 2002
-
GeneWatch UK Briefing: IVD Regulation: problems still not solved
- Press Releases
- GeneWatch PR: Google's gene test company 23andMe proves its own business is useless 28th June 2011
- GeneWatch PR: Response to study of parents who want to gene test children 18th April 2011
- GeneWatch PR: Pre-conception gene tests can be dangerous and misleading 5th April 2011
- GeneWatch PR: GeneWatch slams voluntary gene test guidelines 4th August 2010
- GeneWatch PR: DeCode Genetics files for bankruptcy 17th November 2009
- GeneWatch PR: Lords Committee likely to fail public on gene test regulation 6th July 2009
- GeneWatch PR: Regulation needed to prevent human genome from becoming massive marketing scam 29th October 2007
- GeneWatch PR: Pre-election survey of political parties' views on GM foods and human genetic testing 31st March 2005
- GeneWatch PR: A sales pitch not science - Oxford University attacked for marketing of misleading 'nicotine addiction' gene test 4th January 2005
- GeneWatch PR: GeneWatch UK Welcomes New NHS Guideline for Familial Breast Cancer 23rd June 2004
- GeneWatch PR: GeneWatch UK response to the Human Genetics Commission's 'Genes Direct' report. 9th April 2003
- GeneWatch UK: GeneWatch UK welcomes advice to ministers to regulate genetic tests. 5th February 2003
- GeneWatch PR: GeneWatch UK response to the Human Genetics Commission's announcement 16th July 2002
- GeneWatch PR: High-street stores reject Sciona's human genetic testing 7th June 2002
- GeneWatch PR: Leaked document exposes Government failure to regulate human genetic tests 4th June 2002
- GeneWatch PR: Body Shop's Genetic Tests Misleading and Unethical 13th March 2002
- Newspaper articles
- Japan Times: Experts question value of DNA tests (6th May 2013)
- Orange County Register: Latest app? Store your DNA on a smartphone (17th January 2013)
- Wired: The Case for Selective Paternalism in Genetic Testing (14th January 2013)
- Canberra Times: Life insurers entitled to DNA results (8th January 2013)
- The Sunday Telegraph: DNA testing kit for diseases: the new front line of genetics (6th January 2013)
- Khaleej Times: Centre to offer holistic healthcare in Abu Dhabi (20th December 2012)
- U-T San Diego: A Brave New more customized world coming (16th December 2012)
- Genomics Law Report: Implications of Amgen/deCODE Deal for Genetic Testing Consumers (10th December 2012)
- Nature News Blog: Expert tours his own exome, and finds mainly false alarms (6th December 2012)
- The Scientist: Opinion: Talking Genomics (13th November 2012)
- Wired: Social Codes: Sharing Your Genes Online (9th November 2012)
- Bloomberg News: My DNA Results Spur Alzheimer's Anxiety at USD12,000 Cost (6th November 2012)
- Japan Times: Yahoo Japan to sell genetic test kit to general public (2nd November 2012)
- PLoS Blogs: Why I Don't Want to Know My Genome Sequence (1st November 2012)
- 23andMe Wants FDA Approval for Personal DNA Testing. What Can It Reveal? (2nd August 2012)
- The Scotsman: Genetics company faces inquiry after certifying MP's racial purity (14th June 2012)
- Nature News: Genome test slammed for assessing 'racial purity' (12th June 2012)
- The Nation: How Our Genetic Maps Are Being Sold to the Highest Bidder (6th June 2012)
- American Medical News: How to talk to patients about genetic testing (7th May 2012)
- The Awl: Everything I Didn't Learn From Taking A Personal Genome Test (1st May 2012)
- Forbes: When Getting Your Genome Is Terrifying (6th March 2012)
- BioNews: US health institute launches genetic test database (5th March 2012)
- Bloomberg: Harvard Mapping Of My DNA Turns Scary (15th February 2012)
- TroyMedia: Personalized genetic tests promise more than they can deliver (6th January 2012)
- Sydney Morning Herald: Pharmacies cop flak over genetic testing for weight loss (27th October 2011)
- The Guardian: Genetics tests flawed and inaccurate, say Dutch scientists (30th May 2011)
- San Francisco Examiner: Could a gene test save your life? (13th March 2011)
- Los Angeles Times: FDA panel advises caution on personal genetic testing (9th March 2011)
- Reuters: Home gene tests in the spotlight (7th March 2011)
- MedPage Today: FDA Panel to Discuss Home Genetic Tests (7th March 2011)
- WHNT: Special Report: What Does Your Spit Say About You? (2nd March 2011)
- My Health News Daily: Genetic Tests Debate: Is Too Much Info Bad for Your Health? (19th December 2010)
- Indy Star: Breaking the code of genetic testing (26th November 2010)
- BNET: Why Google Is Throwing Money at a DNA Test Company With a History of Screwups (12th November 2010)
- Medill Reports: Direct to consumer genetics testing kits aren't worth spit, according to British study (20th October 2010)
- Bioscience Technology: Personal genetic profiles lack evidence for claims (12th October 2010)
- Forbes: Why you shouldn't trust newfangled gene tests (8th October 2010)
- Bloomberg: Consumer gene tests should be regulated for accuracy, scientists say (7th October 2010)
- The Lancet: New guidelines for genetic tests are welcome but not sufficient (14th August 2010)
- Newsweek: DNA as crystal ball: buyer beware (18th May 2010)
- The Times: Cashing in on your genes (7th January 2010)
- New Scientist: Genome firm shoots itself in the foot (21st December 2009)
- The National: Gene revolution just a dream (21st November 2008)
- The Independent: Firm that led the way in DNA testing goes bust (18th November 2009)
- The Register: Genetic testing firm goes tits up (18th November 2009)
- Discover: Now for sale at sure fire prices: thousands of people's genomes (18th November 2009)
- The Times: Privacy fears as DNA testing firm deCODE Genetics goes bust (17th November 2009)
- The Guardian: Pioneer of personalised genetic tests files for bankruptcy (17th November 2009)
- Mother Jones: Google's Guinea Pigs (Nov/Dec 09)
- New York Times: Buyer beware of home DNA tests (31st August 2009)
- Bio-IT World: Software glitch scrambles personal genomics data (27th August 2009)
- New Scientist: My non-human DNA: a cautionary tale (26th August 2009)
- New Scientist: Gene predictions tell an ever-changing story (29th July)
- San Francisco Business Times: Genetic tests in regulatory 'No-man's Land' (26th July 2009)
- Mercury News: Online gene testers propose their own regulations (9th July 2009)
- DMN Newswire: Risk of sharing personal genetic information online need more study, Stanford bioethicists say (4th June 2009)
- Healthcare Republic: GPs warned over genetic testing kits (30th April 2009)
- Associated Press: Germany limits genetic testing (24th April 2009)
- Deutsche Welle: New German law restricts genetic testing (24th April 2009)
- The Telegraph: Genetic 'magic bullet' cures have proven a 'false dawn' (21st April 2009)
- Medical News Today: 'Commercial genetic psychiatric tests are irresponsible and harmful, say scientists' (17th April 2009)
- Bloomberg: Personal gene testing showing limited use (16th April 2009)
- Valleywag: Mrs. Google's project not so scientfic, say actual scientists (16th April 2009)
- Bio-IT World: Geneticists Debate the Value of Genome-Wide Association Studies (15th April 2009)
- New York Times: Genes show limited value in predicting common diseases (15th April)
- The Washington Post: Why did Sergei Brin stop blogging? (4th April 2009)
- New Scientist: Time for laws on genome spies (27th March 2009)
- New Scientist: How I felt when my hacked genome was read (26th March 2009)
- New Scientist: How my genome was hacked (25th March 2009)
- Seattle Times: DNA self-tests: More hype than help? (20th March 2009)
- GenomeWeb: NY State regulating DTC genomics firms as labs (19th March 2009)
- US News: DNA the new Dotcom? (17th March 2009)
- Gawker: Google sacrifices son, last shreds of integrity to science (12th March 2009)
- The Guardian: Taming the genetic wild west (9th December 2008)
- The Guardian: The day I had my genes tested (9th December 2008)
- The Sunday Times: Rival genetic tests leave buyers confused (7th September 2008)
- The Daily Mail: Expensive DNA tests are 'no more accurate than horoscopes' (2nd July 2008)
- The Mercury News: Genetic-testing business all but unregulated (28th June 2008)
- The New York Times: Gene testing questioned by regulators (26th June 2008)
- MedPage Today: Guidelines suggested for Direct-to-Consumer gene tests (25th April 2008)
- Forbes.com: States crack down on online gene tests (18th April 2008)
- Associated Press: Gene testing stirs medical debate (12th April 2008)
- Canadian Press: Market for personal gene scans questioned despite big backers (29th March 2008)
- The Guardian: DNA test website raises accuracy fears (22nd January 2008)
- The Guardian: Genetic tests branded a waste of money (1st December 2007)
- BBC: Firm offers online DNA analysis (16th November 2007)
- International Herald Tribune: US government report says better regulation needed for genetic testing (6th November 2006)
- New Scientist: Genetic testing: an informed choice? (6th October 2007)
- New Scientist: Beware gene screening advice (Editorial, 6th October 2007)
- Guardian article: Genetic medics build high hopes
- Observer article - Scientists attack 'flawed' test for smoker's gene
- Observer article - Gene test to help you beat death sparks row on ethics
- Guardian article - Public misled by gene test hype
