National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Front Matter
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

Executive Summary

Approximately 3 percent of all children are born with a severe disorder that is presumed to be genetic in origin, and several thousand definite or suspected single-gene diseases have been described. Most of these diseases manifest themselves early in life, although some inherited diseases—and many others that have a genetic component—have their onset much later in life (e.g., diabetes mellitus or mental illness). Then there are many disorders in which both genetic and environmental factors play major roles (e.g., coronary heart disease, hypertension). These ''complex" disorders are more common than single-gene diseases and thus, in the aggregate, constitute a greater public health burden. Many disease genes can be detected in individuals before symptoms occur, but for many common diseases with some genetic basis, such as heart disease and cancer, the detection of genetic alterations might only indicate susceptibility, not the certainty of disease.

PROMISE AND PROBLEMS IN GENETIC TESTING

The ability to diagnose genetic disease has developed rapidly over the past 20 years, and the Human Genome Project, with its ambitious goal of mapping and sequencing the entire genome, will bring a further explosion in our knowledge of the structure and function of human genes. The ultimate goals of these scientific advances are the treatment, cure, and eventual prevention of genetic disorders, but effective interventions lag behind the ability to detect disease or increased susceptibility to disease. Thus, many genetic services today consist of diagnosis and counseling; effective treatment is rare. Nevertheless, as more genes are identi-

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

fied, there is growing pressure to broaden existing screening programs, and otherwise increase both the number of available genetic tests and the volume of genetic information they generate.

The rapidly changing science and practice of genetic testing raise a number of scientific, ethical, legal, and social issues. The national investment in the Human Genome Project will greatly increase the capacity to detect genes leading to disease susceptibility. It will also greatly increase the availability of genetic testing over the next 5 to 10 years, identifying the genetic basis for diseases—even some newly discovered to be genetic—and increasing the number of tests for detecting them. The emergence of the biotechnology industry increases the likelihood that these findings will be rapidly translated into widely available test kits and diagnostic products. Entrepreneurial pressure may also lead to the development of commercial and academic "genetic testing services" that would not be regulated under current Food and Drug Administration (FDA) procedures. Problems of laboratory quality control would be heightened by the introduction of "multiplex" tests that detect the presence of numerous genetic markers—for disease, carrier status, and susceptibility alike—at the same time. And the potential for generating all of this genetic information about individuals raises serious questions of informed consent, confidentiality, and discrimination. Over the next five to ten years, there will be an increasing number of personal and public policy decisions related to genetic testing; well-trained health professionals and an interested and informed public will both be key to that decision making.

As genetic screening becomes more widespread, these issues threaten to outrun current ethical and regulatory standards, as well as the training of health professionals. There will be a need for greater numbers of genetics specialists, but genetic testing is no longer just for specialists. Increasingly, primary care providers will be called upon to administer tests, counsel patients, and protect their privacy. Government officials and the broader public will also be called upon to participate in setting public policy for genetic testing and in making difficult decisions, public and private, based on the results of genetic tests. Consequently, there must be a significant increase in genetics education, both in the medical curriculum and for all Americans. Finally, there will be a need for centralized oversight to ensure that new genetic tests are accurate and effective, that they are performed and interpreted with close to "zero-error" tolerance, and that the results of genetic testing are not used to discriminate against individuals in employment or health insurance.

COMMITTEE ON ASSESSING GENETIC RISKS

This study of the scientific, ethical, legal, and social issues implicit in the field of genetic diagnosis, testing, and screening was supported jointly by the National Center for Human Genome Research at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy's Health Effects and Life Sciences Research Of-

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

fice. Supplemental funding was also provided by the Markey Charitable Trust and the Institute of Medicine. The Committee on Assessing Genetic Risks hopes that this report will be widely read, not only by various health professionals interested in genetics and preventive medicine, but by a wide-ranging audience who makes and influences public policy in the United States, including members of genetic support groups and the public.

The establishment of the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) Program in the Human Genome Project (HGP) and the set-aside of the first 3 to 5 percent of the HGP research budget for the study of ethical, legal, and social issues is unique in the history of science. This support gives us the opportunity to "worry in advance" about the implications and impacts of the mapping and sequencing of the human genome, including several thousand human disease genes, before wide-scale genetic diagnosis, testing, and screening come into practice, rather than after the problems have presented themselves in full relief.

The committee took its starting point from the wise advice of the 1975 National Academy of Sciences study Genetic Screening: Programs, Principles, and Research:

Screening programs for genetic diseases and characteristics ... have multiplied rapidly in the past decade, and many have been begun without prior testing and evaluation and not always for reasons of health alone. Changes in disease patterns and a new emphasis on preventive medicine, as well as recent and rapid advances in genetics, indicate that screening for genetic characteristics will become more common in the future. These conditions, together with the mistakes already made, suggested the need for a review of current screening practices that would identify the problems and difficulties and give some procedural guidance, in order to minimize the shortcomings and maximize the effectiveness of future genetic screening programs.

These words, written almost 20 years ago, remain just as valid today for genetic testing and diagnosis. The committee reaffirms the sentiments expressed in the 1975 report and hopes to update and broaden their application for the 1990s and beyond.

As a result, the committee has posed its recommendations in terms of general principles that we hope will be useful today—and for some years into the future—for the evaluation of expanded genetic diagnosis, testing, and screening. Although these recommendations reflect what is known today, and what experts foresee for the next few years, the committee had no crystal ball and, therefore, tried to develop criteria and to suggest processes for assessing when new tests are ready for pilot introduction and for widespread application in the population.

The committee's fundamental ethical principles include voluntariness, informed consent, and confidentiality, which in turn derive from respect for autonomy, equity, and privacy. Other committee principles described in the report include the necessity of (1) high-quality tests (of high specificity and sensitivity)

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

performed with the highest level of proficiency and interpreted correctly; and (2) conveying information to clients—both before and after testing—in an easily understood manner through genetic education and counseling that is relevant to the needs and concerns of the client. These principles are the absolute foundation of genetic testing.

It is the view of the committee that, until benefits and risks have been defined, genetic testing and screening programs remain a form of human investigation. Therefore, routine use of tests should be preceded by pilot studies that demonstrate their safety and effectiveness. Standard safeguards should be applied in conducting these pilot studies, and independent review of the pilot studies should be conducted to determine whether the test should be offered clinically. Publicly supported population-based screening programs are justified only for disorders of significant severity, impact, frequency, and distribution, and when there is consensus that the available interventions warrant the expenditure of funds. Informed consent should be an essential element of all screening. These principles and procedures described above should apply to genetic testing regardless of the setting, whether in primary medical practice, public programs, or any other settings.

GENETIC TESTING AND ASSESSMENT

Genetic tests include the many different laboratory assays used to diagnose or predict a genetic condition or the susceptibility to genetic disease. Genetic testing denotes the use of specific assays to determine the genetic status of individuals already suspected to be at high risk for a particular inherited condition because of family history or clinical symptoms; genetic screening involves the use of various genetic tests to evaluate populations or groups of individuals independent of a family history of a disorder. However, these terms are commonly used interchangeably, and the committee has generally used the term genetic testing unless a specific aspect of genetic screening alone is being discussed. Genetic counseling refers to the communication process by which individuals and their family members are given information about the nature, recurrence risk, burden, risks and benefits of tests, and meaning of test results, including reproductive options of a genetic condition, as well as counseling and support concerning the implications of such genetic information.

Newborn Screening

At the present time, there are 10 genetic conditions for which some states screen newborns, although the scope of such screening varies by state (see Table 1). It is also possible to extract DNA from the newborn blood "spots" that are used for these tests. There is increasing pressure to test old blood samples for a wide variety of disorders, as well as to do DNA testing on newborns for a wide

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

TABLE 1 Genetic Disorders for Which Newborns Were Screened in the United States in 1990

Disorder

No. of States That Provided Screeninga

Phenylketonuria

52

Congenital hypothyroidismb

52

Hemoglobinopathy

42c

Galactosemia

38

Maple syrup urine disorder

22

Homocysteinuria

21

Biotinidase deficiency

14

Adrenal hyperplasia

8

Tyrosinemia

5

Cystic fibrosis

3d

a Includes District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands.

b Only a proportion of cases have a genetic etiology.

c Utah's hemoglobinopathy pilot study (6-1-90 through 3-31-91) has been discontinued.

d Wisconsin's cystic fibrosis screening program is for research purposes only.

SOURCE: Council of Regional Networks for Genetic Services, 1992.

variety of disorders in the future. As basic principles to govern newborn screening, the committee recommends that such screening take place only when (1) there is a clear indication of benefit to the newborn, (2) a system is in place to confirm the diagnosis, and (3) treatment and follow-up are available for affected newborns. In addition, the committee does not believe that newborns should be screened using multiplex testing for many disorders at one time unless all of the disorders meet the principles described by the committee in this report (see Chapters 2 and 8).

To determine clear benefit to the newborn, well-designed and peer-reviewed pilot studies are required to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the proposed screening program. In pilot studies for new population-based newborn screening programs, parents should be informed of the investigational nature of the test and have the opportunity to consent to the participation of their infant. Since some existing programs may not have been subject to careful evaluation, the committee recommends that ongoing programs be reviewed periodically, preferably by an independent body that is authorized to add, eliminate, or modify existing programs (see Chapters 1, 3, and 9). The need for ongoing review and revision also suggests that detailed statutory requirements for specific tests may be unduly inflexible; state statutes should provide guidance for standards—not prescriptions. The committee recommends that states with newborn screening programs for treatable disorders also have programs

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

available to ensure that necessary treatment and follow-up services are provided to affected children identified through newborn screening without regard to ability to pay. Informed consent should also be an integral part of newborn screening, including disclosure of the benefits and risks of the tests and treatments. Finally, mandatory screening has not been shown to be essential to achieve maximum public health benefits; however, it is appropriate to mandate the offering of established tests (e.g., phenylketonuria, hypothyroidism) where early diagnosis leads to improved treatable outcomes. (See Chapter 8.)

Newborns should not be screened for the purpose of determining the carrier status of the newborn or its parents for autosomal recessive disorders. Instead, couples in high-risk populations who are considering reproduction should be offered carrier screening for themselves (see below). When carrier status may be incidentally determined in newborn screening (e.g., in sickle cell screening), parents should be informed in advance about the benefits and limitations of genetic information, and that this information is not relevant to the health of their child. If they ask for the results of the incidentally determined carrier status for their own reproductive planning, it should be communicated to them in the context of genetic counseling, and they should be informed that misattributed paternity could be revealed. Newborn screening programs should include provision for counseling of parents who are informed that the child is affected with a genetic disorder.

The committee recognizes the complexities of identifying information about misattributed paternity. On balance, the committee recommends that information on misattributed paternity be communicated to the mother, but not be volunteered to the woman's partner. There may be special circumstances that warrant such disclosure, but these situations present difficult counseling challenges (see Chapters 4 and 8).

Stored newborn blood spots should be made available for additional research only if identifiers have been removed. As with other research involving human subjects, research proposals for the subsequent use of newborn blood spots should be reviewed by an appropriate institutional review board. If identifiable information is to be disclosed, informed consent of the infant's parent or guardian should be obtained prior to use of the specimen (see Chapters 2 and 8 for further discussion). Although DNA typing will provide new tools for newborn screening, in general, the committee recommends that these tools be employed only (1) when genetic heterogeneity of conditions to be detected is small; (2) when the sensitivity of detecting disease-causing mutations is high; (3) when costs are reasonable; and (4) when the benefits to newborns of early detection are clear.

Carrier Identification

Carrier testing is usually provided for purposes of reproductive planning. The committee recommends that couples in high-risk populations who are

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

considering reproduction be offered carrier screening before pregnancy if possible. Standard safeguards such as institutional review and demonstrated safety and effectiveness should be applied in initiating any carrier detection program. First, the test should be accurate, sensitive, and specific. In the future, such screening will be done increasingly as part of routine medical care; the same principles should apply regardless of the setting. Carrier testing and screening should also be voluntary, with high standards of informed consent and attention to telling individuals or couples, in easily understood terms, the medical and social choices available to them should they be found at risk for disease in their offspring, including termination of the pregnancy. Research is needed to develop innovative methods for providing carrier testing in young adults before pregnancy and to evaluate these methods through pilot studies. The committee had reservations about carrier screening programs in the high school setting in the United States and about carrier screening of persons younger than age 18.

With improving technology, carrier status for many different rare autosomal and X-linked recessive disorders will be detectable by multiplex technology (see Chapters 1 and 8). Obtaining appropriate informed consent before testing for each of these disorders will be a challenge (see Chapter 4). Multiplexed tests should, therefore, be grouped into categories of tests (and disorders) that raise similar issues and implications for informed consent and for genetic education and counseling (see Chapters 1, 4, and 8). If carrier status is detected, individuals should be informed of their carrier status to allow testing and counseling to be offered to their partners. Usually, the partner will be found not to be a carrier; however, if both partners are carriers, they should be referred for genetic counseling to help them understand available reproductive options, including the possibility of abortion of an affected fetus identified through prenatal diagnosis.

Prenatal Diagnosis

Anyone considering prenatal diagnosis must be fully informed about the risks and benefits of both the testing procedure and the possible outcomes, as well as alternative options that might be available. Disclosure should include full information concerning the spectrum of severity of the genetic disorders for which prenatal diagnosis is being offered (e.g., cystic fibrosis or fragile X). Furthermore, invasive prenatal diagnosis is only justified if the diagnostic procedures are accurate, sensitive, and specific for the disorder(s) for which prenatal diagnosis is being offered. Standards of care for prenatal screening and diagnosis should also include education and counseling before and after the test, either directly or by referral, and ongoing counseling should also be available following termination of pregnancies.

The committee believes that offering prenatal diagnosis is an appropriate standard of care in circumstances associated with increased risk of carrying a fetus with a diagnosable genetic disorder, including the increased risks associated

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

with advanced maternal age. However, the committee was concerned about the use of prenatal diagnosis for identification of trivial characteristics or conditions. It was the consensus of this committee that prenatal diagnosis should only be offered for the diagnosis of genetic disorders and birth defects. A family history of a diagnosable genetic disorder warrants the offering of prenatal diagnosis, regardless of maternal age, as does determination of carrier status in both parents of an autosomal recessive disorder for which prenatal diagnosis is available. Prenatal diagnostic services for detection of genetic disease for which there is a family history should be reimbursed by insurers (see Chapters 2 and 7). Ability to pay should not restrict appropriate access to prenatal diagnosis or termination of pregnancy of an affected fetus.

The committee felt strongly that the use of fetal diagnosis for determination of fetal sex and the subsequent use of abortion for the purpose of preferential selection of the sex of the fetus represents a misuse of genetic services that is inappropriate and should be discouraged by health professionals. More broadly, reproductive genetic services should not be used to pursue eugenic goals, but should be aimed at increasing individual control over reproductive options. As a consequence, additional research is needed on the impact of prenatal diagnosis, particularly its immediate and long-term impact on women, and on the design and evaluation of genetic counseling techniques for prenatal diagnosis for the future.

Testing for Late-Onset Disorders

Science is moving closer to defining the genetics of such adult disorders as Alzheimer disease, a variety of cancers, heart disease, and arthritis, to name a few (see Chapter 2). A combination of genetic and environmental factors plays a predominant role in most people afflicted with these disorders, but we do not yet understand why some people with a certain gene(s) develop a disease and others do not. Although further work may eventually elucidate the gene(s) involved, there may be long delays until the time when effective interventions are available for many disorders. Furthermore, not all affected individuals will have an identifiable genetic basis to their disorder. Thus, the complexities involved in determining and establishing susceptibility, sorting out potential environmental influences, and devising a strategy for counseling and treatment will pose tremendous challenges in the future.

Many of these diseases do not manifest clinically until adulthood and may become apparent only in middle age or later. Predictive or presymptomatic testing and screening can provide clues about genetic susceptibility or predisposition to genetic disorders. For monogenic disorders of late onset, such as Huntington disease, tests will usually be highly predictive. Many common diseases usually have multifactorial—or complex—causation, including both multiple genetic factors and environmental effects; for these disorders, prediction will be less certain.

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

Many common diseases of adulthood, including coronary artery disease, some cancers, diabetes, high blood pressure, rheumatoid arthritis, and some psychiatric diseases, fall into this category. However, in rare forms of these common diseases, single genes may play the decisive role; screening for disease-causing alleles of these genes will be of much greater predictive value.

The committee therefore recommends caution in the use and interpretation of presymptomatic or predictive tests. The nature of these predictions will usually be probabilistic (i.e., with a certain degree of likelihood of occurrence) and not deterministic (i.e., not definite, settled, or without doubt). The dangers of stigmatization and discrimination are areas of concern, as is the potential for harm due to inappropriate preventive or therapeutic measures. Since environmental factors are often essential for the manifestation of complex diseases, the detection of those at high risk will identify certain individuals who will most benefit from certain interventions (e.g., dietary measures in coronary heart disease). Identification of some persons at high risk for certain cancers suggests that more frequent monitoring may identify the earliest manifestations of cancer when treatability is greatest (e.g., colon cancer); research is needed on the psychosocial implications of such testing in both adults and children.

Further research and the unfolding of the Human Genome Project are likely to reveal the underlying genes mediating predisposition to numerous common diseases, and genetic susceptibility testing will be increasingly possible. Certain environmental factors may interact with only one set of genes and not with another. There may also be interaction between the various genes involved, so that the effects of multiple gene action cannot be predicted by separate analyses of each of the single genes. In such cases, definitive prediction will rarely, if ever, be possible. When dealing with genetic testing for some non-Mendelian diseases, it will be impossible to group individuals into two distinct categories—those at no (or very low) risk and those at high risk. Extensive counseling and education will be essential in any testing for genetic susceptibility. The benefits of the various presymptomatic interventions must be weighed against the potential anxiety, stigmatization, and other possible harms to individuals who are informed that they are at increased risk of developing future disease.

Population screening for predisposition to late-onset monogenic diseases should only be considered for treatable or preventable conditions of relatively high frequency. Under such guidelines, population screening should only be offered after appropriate, reliable, sensitive, and specific tests become available. Such tests do not yet exist. The committee recommends that the predictive value of genetic tests be thoroughly validated in prospective studies of sufficient size and statistical power before their widespread application. Since there will be a considerable time lag before the appearance of confirmatory symptoms, these studies will require support for long periods of time (see Chapter 3).

In the case of predictive tests for mental disorders, results must be handled with stringent attention to confidentiality to protect an already vulnera-

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

ble population. If no effective treatment is available, testing may not be appropriate since more harm than good could result from improper use of test results. On the other hand, future research might result in psychological or drug treatments that could prevent the onset of these diseases. Carefully designed pilot studies should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of such interventions and to measure the desirability and psychosocial impact of such testing. Interpretation and communication of predictive test results in psychiatry will be particularly difficult. To prepare for the issues associated with genetic testing for psychiatric diseases in the future, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals will need more training in genetics and genetic counseling; such training should include the ethical, legal, and social issues in genetic testing.

Because of their wide applicability, it is likely there will be strong commercial interests in the introduction of genetic tests for common, high-profile complex disorders. Strict guidelines for efficacy therefore will be necessary to prevent premature introduction of this technology.

Testing of Children or Minors

Children should generally be tested only for genetic disorders for which there exists an effective curative or preventive treatment that must be instituted early in life to achieve maximum benefit. Childhood testing is not appropriate for carrier status, untreatable childhood diseases, and late-onset diseases that cannot be prevented or forestalled by early treatment. In general, the committee believes that testing of minors should be discouraged unless delaying such testing would reduce benefits of available treatment or monitoring. It is essential that the individual seeking testing understand the potential abuse of such information in society, including in employment or insurance practice, and that the provider should ensure that confidentiality is respected (see Chapter 8 for discussion of disclosure to relatives).

Because only certain types of genetic testing are appropriate for children, multiplex testing that includes tests specifically directed to obtaining information about carrier status, untreatable childhood diseases, or late-onset diseases should not be included in the multiplex tests offered to children. Research should be undertaken to determine the appropriate age for testing and screening for genetic disorders, both to maximize the benefits of therapeutic intervention and to avoid the possibility of generating genetic information about a child when there is no likely benefit and there is possibility of harm to the child.

LABORATORY ISSUES IN GENETIC TESTING

The committee's review of laboratory issues in genetic testing included a workshop with the nation's experts in laboratory quality assurance in genetic testing and meetings with federal officials responsible for implementing federal reg-

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

ulations under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA88) and the medical devices legislation under which the Food and Drug Administration regulates genetic testing products such as test kits, probes, and reagents. The committee found that although adequate legislative authority exists to oversee the quality of genetic testing, this authority is not in fact being implemented for genetic testing. For example, existing CLIA88 regulations could ensure the quality of genetic laboratory testing, but these regulations are not being applied to genetic testing at all. Similarly, FDA has authority to regulate genetic testing kits and associated genetic test reagents and DNA probes, but such tests are rarely being submitted to FDA for approval.

The safety and effectiveness of genetic tests should be established before they are used routinely and, even when that comes to pass, great care should be taken in performing the tests and interpreting the results. The committee is concerned that the regulatory burden not impede further development of tests or the offering of genetic testing services by laboratories; nevertheless, the committee believes that the nature of genetic tests and their interpretation, and the magnitude of the personal and clinical decisions that may be made based on those results—including the abortion of affected fetuses—warrant a standard with close to ''zero" chance of error for such tests. Consequently, laboratories and personnel performing these tests should participate in proficiency testing programs, including review of the interpretation provided by the laboratory to referring physicians. Laboratories with any error should be placed on probation, and proficiency testing repeated, preferably using blinded methods. Unless the laboratory can attain this standard, its certification to perform this test should be removed.

Existing quality assurance in genetic testing is voluntary and has improved laboratory quality in its participants, but the committee finds that current laboratory quality control programs are inadequate to address the special issues posed by genetic testing primarily because these programs lack essential enforcement authority. As genetic testing expands, these voluntary programs should and will be replaced by the requirements of CLIA88. In the interim, the committee believes that the impact of voluntary programs could be strengthened by publishing the names of laboratories that have satisfied proficiency and other requirements. This is now done by the National Tay-Sachs Disease and Allied Disorders Association, Inc., which publishes results of the quality assessment conducted by the International Tay-Sachs Disease Quality Control Reference Standards and Data Collection Center. Before publication, any laboratory not satisfying these requirements should be given ample opportunity to rectify its deficiencies.

Genetics laboratories should provide reports in an easily understandable form for referring physicians who are not genetics specialists. The evaluation of the quality of these reports should be an important component of the proficiency testing process. These reports, including interpretation of the results, should also be reviewed by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) as part of

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

its inspection of laboratories performing genetic tests under CLIA88. The committee also recommends that laboratories performing genetic tests maintain a data base of qualified genetic counselors, genetic centers, and support groups (see Chapters 3, 4, and 6).

Genetic Tests for Rare Disorders

Genetic tests for rare disorders pose special problems in laboratory quality assurance because individual laboratories throughout the country are unlikely to perform enough of these tests to maintain proficiency. Therefore, the committee recommends that tests for rare diseases be centralized in a few laboratories, to which specimens could be referred from other institutions. The committee strongly urges the genetics community under the leadership of its professional societies to designate a small number of laboratories to serve as centralized facilities for rarely performed tests. An external proficiency testing program should be established for these central laboratories, and the genetics community should also study the possibility of setting a minimum volume for a specific genetic test that a laboratory must perform annually in order to obtain certification for that test and to ensure the quality of test performance. With its informatics and data base capabilities, the Special Information Services Program of the National Library of Medicine might also maintain a data base of centralized laboratories performing tests for rare disorders, as well as genetic counseling centers and support groups, which should be available to laboratories, providers, and consumers at no charge.

CLIA88

The committee recommends that most genetic tests be classified as "high complexity" under CLIA88, primarily to ensure the highest level of federal oversight of laboratories performing genetic tests. The committee recommends that HCFA create a new specialty of clinical genetics, incorporating the existing subspecialty of clinical cytogenetics, and the new subspecialties of biochemical genetics and molecular genetics as well. Maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein (MSAFP) testing and other methods of prenatal testing for birth defects should be incorporated into one of these three subspecialties. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should expand its proficiency testing programs for newborn screening. HCFA should also give high priority to setting specific requirements for frequently performed prenatal tests and incorporating these standards in its training programs for current and new laboratory inspectors. All laboratories performing genetic screening, including state laboratories, should be required to participate in proficiency testing.

Laboratories using investigational devices for genetic tests (see below) are still covered under CLIA88 as long as test results are reported and used in clinical decision making and counseling, and these laboratories should also be subject to

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

external quality assessment. Laboratories in academic health centers and elsewhere that conduct research, but that also perform genetic tests as a service (providing the results to referring laboratories or physicians, or directly to patients), fall under the purview of CLIA88 and should be subject to the same criteria, standards, and regulation as commercial genetic testing laboratories.

Genetic Tests and the FDA

The committee is concerned that tests for newborns and other types of screening may be offered to the public before their safety, effectiveness, and clinical utility have been adequately assessed. To remedy this, the manufacturer or user of a device for a new screening test (including state laboratories or health departments) should comply with the FDA's regulations for Investigational Device Exemptions (IDE). For example, the investigational or "pilot" phase of screening should be conducted under a protocol approved by an institutional review board (IRB), and the pilot phase should be evaluated by an entity independent of the organization conducting the pilot study.

Compliance with FDA requirements is essential to ensuring safe and effective use of genetic tests, just as compliance with CLIA88 is essential for any laboratory performing genetic tests for clinical purposes. All genetic tests should either be designated as investigational devices—subject to IRB approval and FDA regulation—or be submitted to the FDA for full premarket approval. An Advisory Panel on Genetic Test Devices to the FDA should be established to ensure appropriate expert review for genetic testing products. Genetic diagnostic devices should be classified for full premarket approval by FDA (Class III), and the FDA should develop guidance to manufacturers for preparing premarket applications for genetic test devices (see Chapter 3).

DNA probes and other reagents that are essential to the performance of genetic tests are medical devices under current FDA law and regulation. Consequently, whenever probes and reagents are used for clinical purposes, they must either be labeled "for investigational use only" (and must comply with FDA requirements for investigational use) or have FDA approval for marketing. When genetic test devices are used investigationally for clinical purposes, manufacturers—including commercial or academically based laboratories preparing their own devices—should apply for FDA approval of an IDE, including an IRB approved protocol and periodic reports on the results of their investigations.

Many institutional review boards lack experience in the review of investigational genetic testing protocols. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office for Protection from Research Risks has recently issued initial guidance for research involving genetics in its IRB Guidebook. The NIH Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR) and the National Center for Human Genome Research (NCHGR) ELSI Program should continue to coordinate efforts to assist IRBs in coping with this responsibility. Other federal agencies and pro-

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

fessional groups should also consider developing guidelines to help IRBs cope with this added responsibility, such as the informed consent guidelines for research involving genetic testing developed by the Alliance of Genetic Support Groups and the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) (see Chapter 4).

The committee recognizes that, for very rare diseases and diseases with a long lead time between the time of the test and the appearance of disease, it will be difficult for FDA applicants to provide adequate data on safety and effectiveness for subjects of the type in whom the test would be applied (e.g., presymptomatic individuals). It may also be impossible to assess the sensitivity and specificity of prenatal tests by independent tests or histopathological examination of aborted fetuses. For rare diseases, the FDA could grant the applicant "provisional premarket approval," a designation under which the test could be made more widely available while making the manufacturer responsible for obtaining additional postmarket data until sufficient data are available to warrant full "premarket" approval. This process may require new legislation, but the committee believes that provisional premarket approval, with the sponsor responsible for periodic postmarket study, adequately covers the development of tests for rare conditions, which is the intent of the "humanitarian device exemption" (contained in the Safe Medical Device Amendments of 1990). And since manufacturers may be unwilling to go through premarket approval of tests for rare diseases, Congress should also consider the need for legislation in the spirit of the Orphan Drug Act that would give manufacturers an incentive to develop diagnostic medical devices for genetic tests of limited marketability.

GENETIC COUNSELING

Genetic counseling and education must be an integral part of genetic testing. Anyone who is offering (or referring for) genetic testing must provide (or refer for) appropriate genetic counseling and education prior to testing. To ensure that adequate genetic counseling is provided to all those seeking genetics services, a cadre of individuals trained in medical genetics and counseling must be available. Primary care practitioners and allied health professionals must have a minimal basic understanding of medical genetics and counseling (see Chapters 4 and 6). Efforts must also be made to ensure that the public is sufficiently educated to be informed consumers of genetics services (see Chapter 5).

Basic Tenets of Genetic Counseling

The committee believes that certain basic tenets apply, regardless of who is conducting the counseling and where it is being done. These include respect for the autonomy and privacy of the individual, the need for informed consent and confidentiality, and sensitivity to the counselor's tendency toward directiveness and paternalism (see Chapters 1, 4, and 8). The standard of care should be to

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

support the client in making voluntary informed decisions and to provide sensitive and empathic support for the emotional suffering caused by the genetic problem. The goal of reducing the incidence of genetic conditions is not acceptable, since this aim is explicitly eugenic; professionals should not present any reproductive decisions as "correct" or advantageous for a person or society. Research is needed to test alternative methods for providing genetic counseling (e.g., interactive video and computer methods with referral to a counselor for answers to questions), and to evaluate the costs and effectiveness of such changes.

One key to effective genetics services is the concept of the teachable moment, that is, the point(s) at which an individual, couple, or family, is best able to comprehend the information being given them. Unfortunately, the genetic counselor may not have the opportunity to counsel clients at more advantageous teachable moments—after some of the early shock and denial that often accompany genetic diagnosis have abated—because of restrictions on insurance reimbursement (see Chapter 7) and administrative impediments such as scheduling counseling on the day of testing. Studies are therefore needed on alternative approaches to genetic counseling, including the effects of differing levels of intensity of counseling and education both before testing—to help those at risk to decide whether or not they want to be tested—and after testing—to deal with the consequences of having the information (see below).

Physicians need to balance their desire to provide medical advice with respect for the patient's right to make an informed decision that may be different from the one recommended by the physician. This is especially crucial in genetic testing, since genetic information carries more personal, family, and social risks and burdens than many other kinds of medical information. In particular, decisions about whether to reproduce or to abort an affected fetus are individual choices that should be left to each couple. Similarly, a decision about whether to test for the presence of genes or gene complexes that predict the likely development of future disease that cannot be treated should be an individual decision. And when treatment becomes possible, some of these decisions may still be painful, costly, and uncertain, and still require genetic counseling. Nondirectiveness should always remain the standard of care for reproductive planning and decisions, and full informed consent before genetic testing will continue to be essential.

Since genetics education and counseling are likely to be provided increasingly by primary care practitioners, these practitioners will need training to help them perform these functions appropriately and to know when to refer patients to specialized genetics personnel. Innovative educational devices to support genetics education and counseling should be designed and evaluated (e.g., video, interactive computer systems, and on-line data bases) in primary care settings. Finally, the genetic counselor, as the messenger of potentially devastating or discriminatory information, must honor the patient's desire for confidentiality except under rare special circumstances where breach of

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

confidentiality is necessary to avert serious harm (discussed in Chapters 4 and 8). These special circumstances may involve the potential effects of genetic information on other family members or the potential harm to others if the information is not disclosed. Should a counselor anticipate a professional or personal need to disclose genetic information to a party other than the patient with whom he or she is consulting, then the potential for that disclosure should be addressed before any genetic testing services are rendered.

Tailoring Counseling to the Client

Research on the best ways to provide essential genetics education and counseling—by a variety of providers in a variety of settings—must precede efforts to streamline genetic counseling (see Chapters 6 and 9). The committee believes that understanding and recall of numerical risks of recurrence are too limited as measures of the success of or need for counseling. Beyond mere comprehension of numerical risk, genetic counseling is intended to assist individuals in evaluating the implications of genetic testing and genetic information, and in determining their own acceptable risk. Since risk perceptions vary among individuals and among counselees and counselors, there is no one right way to present or interpret risk information; however, information must be balanced, and the process must be tailored to the client.

Ethnic and cultural sensitivity is particularly important—genetic counseling should be tailored to the cultural perspective of the client, with special attention to differing cultures between client and health care professional. Research is needed to determine how best to provide genetic counseling in ways that are sensitive and appropriate to a variety of cultures and languages. Training in culturally appropriate language and delivery of genetic services should be included in the training of genetics and other health professionals who are likely to provide genetic testing and counseling in the future. It is also vital to destigmatize language describing genetic disorders and disabilities, and to present information about these conditions as fairly as possible. As one step in this process, genetic counseling and other genetics training programs should actively seek to increase the number of minority practitioners prepared to provide a variety of genetic counseling roles in a variety of settings (see Chapters 4 and 6).

PUBLIC EDUCATION

Much of the responsibility for preparing individuals to deal effectively with the ramifications of genetics must fall to the public education system. This includes both formal education, which takes place in the schools, and informal education, which takes place outside of school (see Chapter 5). Data from large-scale testing programs suggest that a clinic or a doctor's office is not the best context for a first exposure to genetic testing information, and that public education campaigns and counseling, generally, have a greater impact on individuals

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

with some previous exposure to genetic concepts. Decisions about genetic testing and its potential personal impact ultimately must be tied to preexisting knowledge and value systems; without such knowledge, individuals are more likely to make uninformed decisions or to cede all decisions about genetic testing to their health care professionals.

What do we want people to know, value, and do about genetic information? For example, people should know that DNA is the information molecule; they should value the variation and diversity that are expressed from that molecule, but they also need to appreciate the nature of the interaction among genes, the individual, and the environment. Perhaps the most important contribution of new knowledge about genetics is its ability to document a major biological basis for human variation. The old argument about nature versus nurture is outdated: as discussed throughout the report, both nature (biology) and nurture (environment) are important to health, and broad public understanding of the role of genetics (and its limits) is essential to avoid genetic reductionism and a "new eugenics."

Genetics education should also focus on concepts of genetic variability, diversity, and kinship. Such a focus will help to avoid simplistic explanations such as dichotomizing of genetic risks of complex diseases with genetic determinants as either categorically good news—that an individual has essentially zero risk for a particular disease—or categorically bad news—that he or she is virtually certain to develop it. Many disorders are of variable and often unpredictable severity, and much genetic risk assessment is of an inherently probabilistic nature. Genetic testing is not an end in itself but rather a method for gaining information and insight to help people make personal and family health decisions. The basic task is to educate the public so that each individual is capable of making an informed decision about seeking or using genetic testing and considering personal courses of action. In addition, the public and policy makers must be educated to help them develop appropriate public policy regarding genetic testing and screening. Genetic counseling will ultimately be made more effective by a better educated public. This approach to public education about genetics will not be a simple or a small task.

The Human Genome Project's Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Program should coordinate a public education initiative in genetics and expand its support for such efforts. Key policy and research strategies to be considered are (1) ensuring that appropriate educational messages about genetic tests and their implications reach the public; (2) incorporating principles, concepts, and skills training that support informed decision making about genetic testing into all levels of schooling—kindergarten through college; (3) enhancing consumers' knowledge and ability to make informed decisions in either seeking or accepting genetic tests; (4) establishing systems for designing, implementing, and maintaining community-based genetics education among population groups at higher risk of particular genetic disorders (e.g., increased risk related to race or ethnicity); and (5) enlisting the mass media to help decrease consumer confusion and in-

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

crease the knowledge and skills that will equip consumers to make the most appropriate decisions for themselves (see Chapter 5).

The National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, and other organizations should expand their investment in public education related to the human genome. These efforts should (1) expand programs that support model educational initiatives for precollege science and undergraduate molecular biology; (2) collaborate with the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications component of the Human Genome Project to encourage such programs to focus on the health, social, legal, and ethical issues raised by genetic testing and screening; and (3) require evaluation of educational interventions.

Broad public participation will be required to develop educational approaches that respect the widely varying personal and cultural perspectives on issues of genetics, and are tolerant and respectful of individuals with genetic disorders of all kinds. Particular effort will be needed to include the perspectives of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities, who may feel especially affected by developing genetic technologies. There is much to be learned from those who are particularly affected by genetic testing technologies, and from those affected by genetic disorders, including persons with disabilities and their families and support groups. The committee believes that genetics professionals and qualified educators must work with public representatives to identify the essential components of genetic literacy.

A "Consumer's Guide to Genetic Testing" should be developed (also see Chapters 1, 5, and 9) to provide information on genetic services, various genetic tests, and the implications of the tests so as to aid in providing balanced, reliable, readily understandable, and available sources of needed information. Innovative computer and interactive computer systems should also be developed to provide patients/clients with the latest information on genetic disorders and on genetic diagnosis, testing, and screening. If designed and used appropriately, such computer resources could assist genetics specialists and primary care practitioners by presenting patients with basic, self-paced genetics education and even presenting possible options for consideration of patients. The ELSI Program should therefore coordinate with the National Library of Medicine in developing innovative methods of providing information to the public similar to the on-line AIDS bibliography. More research is needed to determine which tasks in genetics education and counseling can be appropriately accomplished by using such techniques and to evaluate these techniques in various settings and populations.

PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

The committee sees no prospect, in the foreseeable future, of having enough highly specialized genetics personnel to handle all genetic testing, including essential genetics education and genetic counseling. Therefore, policy discussion

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

should focus not only on training more genetic counselors and other genetic specialists, but on better educating the obstetrics, pediatrics, and family practice communities about the nature of genetic testing, diagnosis, and counseling.

Some progress has been made in increasing physicians' knowledge of genetic testing and their ability to take good family histories, particularly in specialties that involve more genetic tests (e.g., pediatrics and obstetrics; see Chapter 6). More recent graduates also know more than older physicians. Nevertheless, the committee is very concerned that relatively little progress has been made—certainly not enough to prepare physicians-in-training for the increasing requirements for genetic testing, education, and counseling projected for the future. The committee strongly recommends that medical education begin to incorporate a genetic point of view throughout its curriculum, but especially in the critical clinical years, and that medical board examinations should include more questions on genetics. More research is needed on knowledge of genetics and skills needed for genetics education and genetic counseling among all of these professional groups so that proper reforms can be implemented.

The biggest potential contribution of genetics to medical education may be its ability to document a major biological basis for human variation. Conventional teaching in medical school often disregards differences in etiology, presentation, response to therapy, personal preferences, and prognosis of people who may be "lumped" together under a single disease label. A true revolution will come much more from introducing a new way of learning about disease and health, of emphasizing the importance of individual differences, some but not all of which are genetically determined. Historically, the discovery of germs as causative agents in disease led to a reductionist germ theory that explained everything in terms of germs; the committee is concerned that the explosion of genetics knowledge may replace the reductionist germ theory with a reductionist gene theory—to the detriment of medical progress.

Genetics professionals and all others offering or referring for genetic testing should be trained in the ethical, legal, and social issues surrounding genetic diagnosis, testing, and screening. Laboratory personnel should be a special focus of such training about the complexities of genetic testing to adequately interpret tests, including a knowledge of test limitations and social issues surrounding genetic testing. Of particular importance is training to deal with the sensitivities of genetics education and counseling, including the need for nondirectiveness, in counseling about reproductive options and about disorders for which no treatment exists. Expanded undergraduate and graduate training of nurses in genetics, genetics education, and genetic counseling is also needed, along with the training of social workers in the special requirements of genetics education and counseling. With proper training, the integration of other health professionals such as nurses, nurse practitioners, social workers, psychologists, and primary care physicians, into the existing genetics services network will supplement the time and skills of traditional genetic counseling (see Chapter 4).

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

The accelerating developments of new knowledge in genetic testing will also require expanded formal continuing education programs in clinical genetics, including those geared to the genetic counselor, primary care practitioner, and social worker (see Chapter 5). The Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Program should coordinate with professional genetics organizations and the National Library of Medicine to develop genetics education and dissemination programs for interested health professionals. Genetics specialists should develop and provide continuing education and training for other professionals, as well as take a leadership role in genetics education for the public. Other health care professionals should also participate in programs intended to increase public awareness and education about genetics.

More minorities should be recruited for training programs in all aspects of clinical genetics. This will be especially important in providing culturally sensitive and appropriate genetic testing, education, and counseling services in the future (see above), when so-called minority groups will comprise a majority of the population of the United States (see Chapters 4 and 6).

FINANCING OF GENETIC TESTING SERVICES

The cost and financing of genetic testing and counseling have had a profound effect on access to these services in the United States. No matter what aspect of genetics is discussed, it is almost impossible to keep the discussion from turning to issues related to financing, in particular the role of health insurance in genetic testing and counseling (see Chapter 7). The United States is the only developed country in the world without a social insurance or statutory system to cover basic expenses for medical services for most of its population. This creates problems of access and equity, especially for those low-income or high-risk individuals who are self-employed, work part-time, or are employed by small businesses and who may not be able to afford or obtain health insurance. Over 37 million people are without health insurance coverage in the United States.

Even for those who have health insurance, coverage for most preventive, screening, and counseling services may be excluded. These limitations of health care coverage in the United States particularly affect genetic services, which have an important counseling component. Insurance reimbursement or other financing of genetic testing is not generally available now in the United States. The committee also heard testimony that individuals whose insurance does cover some or all genetic services may be reluctant or unwilling to file claims for such services. They may fear that the genetic information they sought might be used to evaluate and deny their future applications for health or life insurance coverage, or lead to higher premiums or limited coverage. And, because so much coverage in the United States is employment based, people may also worry that their employer will have access to the information and use it (overtly or covertly) to discriminate against them (see Chapters 7 and 8).

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

In order to develop appropriate financing for genetic testing and counseling services, private and public health plans, and geneticists and consumers, should work together to develop guidelines for the reimbursement of genetic services. Such guidelines should address the issue of how each new genetic test should be assessed for its sensitivity and specificity in light of the availability of effective treatment, the consequences of the test, the evaluation of pilot study results, and when new tests are appropriate for use in routine clinical practice (see Chapters 1 and 7).

In addition, the insurance concept of what is considered medically necessary (and therefore reimbursable) should be expanded to include the offering of appropriate genetic testing and related education and counseling, making these genetic services reimbursable under health insurance plans. Medical appropriateness can often be established by a family history of the disorder. In pregnancy, medical necessity should be considered established for cytogenetic testing in pregnancies in women of advanced maternal age or considered at high risk based on other methods of assessing risk. The committee also recommends that newborn screening and MSAFP screening in pregnant women of any age be considered within the insurance definition of medically appropriate and be reimbursable under health insurance plans (see Chapter 7).

SOCIAL, LEGAL, AND ETHICAL ISSUES IN GENETIC TESTING

The committee recommends that vigorous protection be given to autonomy, privacy, confidentiality, and equity. These principles should be breached only in rare instances and only when the following conditions are met: (1) the action must be aimed at an important goal—such as the protection of others from serious harm—that outweighs the value of autonomy, privacy, confidentiality, or equity in the particular instance; (2) it must have a high probability of realizing that goal; (3) there must be no acceptable alternatives that can also realize the goal without breaching those principles; and (4) the degree of infringement of the principle must be the minimum necessary to realize the goal.

Voluntariness

Voluntariness should be the cornerstone of any genetic testing program. The committee found no justification for a state-sponsored mandatory public health program involving genetic testing of adults or for unconsented-to genetic testing of patients in the clinical setting . There is evidence that voluntary screening programs achieve a higher level of efficacy in screening, and there is no evidence that mandating newborn screening is necessary or sufficient to ensure that the vast majority of newborns are screened. Mandatory offering of newborn screening is appropriate for disorders with treatments of demonstrated efficacy

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

where very early intervention is essential to improve health outcomes (e.g., phenylketonuria and congenital hypothyroidism). One benefit of voluntariness and informing parents about newborn screening is that of quality assurance: parents can check to see if the sample was actually drawn. In addition, since people will be facing the possibility of undergoing many more genetic tests in their lifetimes, the disclosure of information to parents about newborn screening prior to the event can be an important tool for education about genetics.

Informed Consent

Obtaining informed consent should be the method of ensuring that genetic testing is voluntary. By informed consent the committee means a process of education and the opportunity to have questions answered—not merely the signing of a form. The patient or client should be given information about the risks, benefits, efficacy, and alternatives to the testing; information about the severity, potential variability, and treatability of the disorder being tested for; information about the subsequent decisions that will be likely if the test is positive (such as a decision about abortion); and information about any potential conflicts of interest of the person or institution offering the test (see Chapters 1, 3, and 8). Research should therefore also be undertaken to determine what patients want to know in order to make a decision about whether or not to undergo a genetic test. People often have less interest in the label for the disorder and its mechanisms of action than in how certainly the test predicts the disorder, what effects the disorder has on physical and mental functioning, and how intrusive, difficult, or effective any existing treatment protocol would be. Research is also necessary to determine the advantages and disadvantages of various means of conveying that information (e.g., through specialized genetic counselors, primary care providers, single disorder counselors, brochures, videos, audiotapes, computer programs).

Confidentiality

All forms of genetic information should be considered confidential and should not be disclosed without the individual's consent (except as required by state law, or in rare instances discussed in Chapters 4 and 8). This includes genetic information that is obtained through specific genetic testing of a person, as well as genetic information about that person that is obtained in other ways (e.g., physical examination, past treatment, or a relative's genetic status). The confidentiality of genetic information should be protected no matter who obtains or maintains that information. This includes genetic information collected or maintained by health care professionals, health care institutions, researchers, employers, insurance companies, laboratory personnel, and law enforcement officials. To the extent that current statutes do not ensure such confidentiality, they should be amended.

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

Codes of ethics for professionals providing genetic services should contain specific provisions to protect autonomy, privacy, and confidentiality. The committee endorses the 1991 National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) statement of guiding principles on confidentiality of test results:

The NSGC support individual confidentiality regarding results of genetic testing. It is the right and responsibility of the individual to determine who shall have access to medical information, particularly results of testing for genetic conditions.

Confidentiality should be breached and relatives informed about genetic risks only when (1) attempts to elicit voluntary disclosure fail, (2) there is a high probability of irreversible harm that the disclosure will prevent, and (3) there is no other reasonable way to avert the harm. When disclosure is to be attempted over the patient's refusal, the burden should be on the person who wishes to disclose to justify to the patient, to an ethics committee, and perhaps in court that the disclosure was necessary and met the committee's test. Thus, the committee has determined that the disadvantages of informing relatives over the patient's refusal generally outweigh the advantages, except in the rare instances described above (see Chapters 4 and 8). The committee recommends that health care providers not reveal genetic information about a patient's carrier status to the patient's spouse without the patient's permission, and that information on misattributed paternity should be given to the mother, but not be volunteered to her partner.

As a matter of general principle, the committee believes strongly that patients should disclose to relatives genetic information relevant to ensuring the health of those relatives. Patients should be encouraged and aided in sharing appropriate genetic information with spouses and relatives. To facilitate the disclosure of relevant genetic information to family members, accurate and balanced materials should be developed to assist individuals in informing their families, and in providing access to further information, as well as access to testing if relatives should choose to be tested. Under those rare circumstances where unauthorized disclosure of genetic information is deemed warranted, the genetic counselor should first try to obtain the permission of the person to release the information.

The committee also endorses the principles on the protection of DNA data and DNA data banking developed in 1990 by the ASHG Ad Hoc Committee on Identification by DNA Analysis. In short, patients' consent should be obtained before their names are provided to a genetic disease registry, and their consent should also be obtained before information is redisclosed. Each entity that receives or maintains genetic information or samples should have procedures in place to protect confidentiality. Information or samples should be kept free of identifiers and instead use encoding to link the information or sample to the individual's name. Finally, any entity that releases genetic information about an

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

individual to someone other than that individual should ensure that the recipient of the genetic information has procedures in place to protect the confidentiality of the information.

Genetic Discrimination in Health Insurance

Legislation should be adopted to prevent medical risks, including genetic risks, from being taken into account in decisions on whether to issue or how to price health care insurance. Because health insurance differs significantly from other types of insurance in that it regulates access to health care—an important social good—risk-based health insurance should be eliminated. Access to health care should be available to every American without regard to the individual's present health status or condition; in particular, the committee recommends that insurability decisions not be based on genetic status (see Chapters 7 and 8).

Some of the committee's concerns about genetic discrimination in health insurance would be obviated by current proposals for national health insurance reform that would eliminate most, if not all, aspects of medical underwriting. The committee recommends that insurance reform preclude the use of genetic information in establishing eligibility for health insurance. As health insurance reform proposals are developed, those concerned with genetic disorders will need to assess whether they adequately protect genetic information and persons with genetic disorders from health insurance discrimination and discrimination in the provision of medical services (see Chapters 7 and 8).

Genetic Discrimination in Employment

Legislation should be adopted that forbids employers to collect genetic information on prospective or current employees unless it is clearly job related. Sometimes employers will have employees submit to medical exams to see if they are capable of performing particular job tasks. If an individual consents to the release of genetic information to an employer or potential employer, the releasing entity should not release specific information, but instead answer only yes or no regarding whether the individual was fit to perform the job at issue.

The committee urges the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to recognize that the language of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides protection for presymptomatic people with genetic risks for late-onset disorders, unaffected carriers of disorders that might affect their children, and individuals with genetic profiles indicating the possibility of increased risk of a multifactorial disorder. State legislatures should adopt laws to protect people from genetic discrimination in employment. In addition, ADA should be amended (and similar state statutes adopted) to limit the type of medical testing employers can request and to ensure that the medical information they can collect is job related.

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

RESEARCH AND POLICY AGENDA

In its efforts to complete a comprehensive overview of issues in genetic testing and screening, the Committee on Assessing Genetic Risks identified significant gaps in data, research, and policy analysis that impede informed policy making for the future. Surprisingly few data exist on the extent of genetic testing and screening today, for example, and no system is in place to gather data or to assess practices in relation to the committee's principles and recommendations for the future. The committee's review of the key data, research, and policy needs in genetic testing and screening has generated recommendations addressed to the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Program of the Human Genome Project, and several recommendations are addressed to other relevant agencies, including other components of the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the Public Health Service (PHS), the Health Care Financing Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and a broad range of private organizations.

Policy Oversight

The committee strongly believes that effective oversight will be essential as genetic testing develops to ensure that genetic tests are validated and used appropriately, with respect for the potential harms such testing may pose. For effective overall and continuing policy oversight, the majority of the committee recommends the creation of a broadly representative National Advisory Committee and Working Group on Genetic Testing to oversee professional practices and determine when new genetic tests are ready for wide-scale use in medical practice (see Chapters 1 and 9).

Although the American Society of Human Genetics, National Society of Genetic Counselors, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and other professional organizations have developed policy statements on key policy issues in genetic testing, genetic testing has moved beyond the domain of genetics specialists alone. There is also a need for broad public involvement in the development of public policy concerning genetic testing and screening. As discussed throughout this report, genetic testing has broad health and social implications of both immediate and future concern to individuals and families with genetic disorders, genetic support groups, and the public at large. Increased public education will be required to equip the public to make informed personal and policy decisions in genetic testing (see Chapter 5). The proposed National Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing and its Working Group are intended to provide the essential broadly based scientific and public oversight for genetic testing and screening.

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

The committee also sees a need for broadly representative advisory bodies at the state level (see Chapters 1 and 9). These advisory bodies should be guided by the principles outlined in this report. They should guide state health departments and legislatures on such issues as when tests should be added to state-run screening programs and how to ensure that the offering, testing, and associated education and counseling are conducted in accord with the principles outlined in this report. State statutes affecting genetic testing should not be unduly prescriptive or restrictive, and should provide latitude to such advisory bodies to modify state-run genetic testing programs.

Research Policy

Much of current genetic testing grew out of the context of research studies, and some genetic testing is still being done in research settings. Research initiatives involving genetic testing are being supported and developed not only within the Human Genome Project, but also within the research programs of various components of the National Institutes of Health (including the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases) and the Human Genome Program of the Department of Energy. In developing and approving research protocols, the committee recommends that the NIH and the DOE consider the recommendations of this committee within the context of their research programs, including study of the psychosocial issues and implications of genetic testing and the potential for harm from the use and misuse of genetic information. This is especially significant where there is no treatment available for the disorders, as will often be the case in the near future. In developing requests for proposals and requests for applications and in reviewing research, demonstration projects, pilot studies, clinical trials, and family studies in genetics, funding agencies should pay particular attention to psychosocial issues and should assess the availability of appropriate genetic counseling and follow-up services as elements of study design.

Need for Additional Standards

The committee identified several areas for which additional standards were needed concerning who should be tested, for what disorders, and at what age. While existing standards may have been adequate for the past, new standards must be developed in response to rapid developments in genetic testing methods that are now experimental. In particular, additional standards are needed for prenatal diagnosis, predispositional testing, and multiplex testing (see Chapter 9). Research and policy analysis is needed in prenatal genetic diagnosis to address problems such as the complexities of identifying fetal cells in maternal blood, maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein screening, notions of ''perfect-

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×

ibility," use of prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion to choose the sex of the fetus, the special impact of prenatal diagnosis on women, and carrier detection in pregnancy rather than prior to conception (see Chapters 2 and 9). Reproductive genetic decisions raise some of the most deeply personal and troubling issues in genetic testing. Professional groups need to work together and develop innovative methods for involving the public in the development of standards for the use of these technologies (see Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 9).

Standards are also needed for genetic testing for predisposition to late-onset disorders. There is an important "window of opportunity" for considering these issues now, before predispositional genetic testing becomes widespread. Tests for predisposition to common disorders will be of great commercial interest, and could have substantial potential for harm to individuals and families in terms of insurability and employability, as well as substantial benefit from the potential of early preventive and therapeutic interventions. Strict guidelines for efficacy will be necessary to prevent premature introduction of this technology (see Chapters 1, 2, and 9). The committee believes that population screening for late-onset diseases should be considered only for treatable or preventable conditions of relatively high frequency and only after appropriate, reliable, sensitive, and specific tests become available; and such tests should be voluntary. In general, because of the significant medical and psychosocial consequences of predictive testing, the committee believes that testing of minors should be discouraged. Instead, research should be undertaken to determine the appropriate age for testing and screening for genetic disorders in minors in order to maximize the benefits of therapeutic intervention.

Multiplex testing—multiple genetic tests on a single blood or other tissue sample—represents one of the most likely innovations in genetic testing. Consequently, the committee also recommends the development of standards for multiplex genetic testing. Innovative methods are needed to group tests by related types of disorders that raise similar issues (including the availability of effective treatment and how soon treatment needs to be instituted), as a basis for appropriate education, informed consent, and genetic counseling. This will allow potential screenees (or parents) to choose which, if any, group of tests they feel is appropriate for them. Tests for untreatable disorders should not be multiplexed with tests for disorders that can be cured or prevented by treatment or by avoidance of particular environmental stimuli. Multiplex testing is also an area in which more research is needed to develop ways to ensure that patient autonomy is recognized (see Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8).

Policy Research Needs

The committee identified significant data and policy research needs related to genetic testing (see Chapter 9). In addition to its other recommendations, the committee identified several areas in which policy research is needed, including

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
  • pilot studies of new tests before wide-scale introduction;

  • cost-effectiveness analysis of genetic testing;

  • critical deficiencies in data on genetic services;

  • research on population distribution and heterogeneity of traits involved in genetic or genetically influenced disease; and

  • assessment of what has been learned thus far from ELSI research and policy studies.

Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Exective Summary." Institute of Medicine. 1994. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2057.
×
Page 28
Next: 1 Setting the Stage »
Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $95.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Raising hopes for disease treatment and prevention, but also the specter of discrimination and "designer genes," genetic testing is potentially one of the most socially explosive developments of our time. This book presents a current assessment of this rapidly evolving field, offering principles for actions and research and recommendations on key issues in genetic testing and screening.

Advantages of early genetic knowledge are balanced with issues associated with such knowledge: availability of treatment, privacy and discrimination, personal decision-making, public health objectives, cost, and more. Among the important issues covered:

  • Quality control in genetic testing.
  • Appropriate roles for public agencies, private health practitioners, and laboratories.
  • Value-neutral education and counseling for persons considering testing.
  • Use of test results in insurance, employment, and other settings.
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!