National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 6 How Can Consumer Genomics Be Better Integrated to Improve Health?
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Exploring the Current Landscape of Consumer Genomics: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25713.
×

References

ABGC (American Board of Genetic Counseling). 2019. Mission statement, purpose and values. https://www.abgc.net/about-abgc/mission-history (accessed December 13, 2019).

Allyse, M. A., D. H. Robinson, M. J. Ferber, and R. R. Sharp. 2018. Direct-to-consumer testing 2.0: Emerging models of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 93(1):113–120.

Auer, P. L., A. P. Reiner, G. Wang, H. M. Kang, G. R. Abecasis, D. Altshuler, M. J. Bamshad, D. A. Nickerson, R. P. Tracy, S. S. Rich, and S. M. Leal. 2016. Guidelines for large-scale sequence-based complex trait association studies: Lessons learned from the NHLBI exome sequencing project. American Journal of Human Genetics 99(4):791–801.

Blell, M., and M. A. Hunter. 2019. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing’s red herring: “Genetic ancestry” and personalized medicine. Frontiers in Medicine 6:48.

Bloss, C. S., L. Ornowski, E. Silver, M. Cargill, V. Vanier, N. J. Schork, and E. J. Topol. 2010. Consumer perceptions of direct-to-consumer personalized genomic risk assessments. Genetics in Medicine 12(9):556–566.

Bonham, V. L., E. D. Green, and E. J. Pérez-Stable. 2018. Examining how race, ethnicity, and ancestry data are used in biomedical research. JAMA 320(15):1533–1534.

Brasler, K. 2019. DNA ancestry testing: Are their reports rooted in reality? https://www.checkbook.org/national/dna-ancestry-services/articles/DNA-Ancestry-Testing-Are-Their-Reports-Rooted-in-Reality-7242 (accessed November 22, 2019).

Caswell-Jin, J. L., T. Gupta, E. Hall, I. M. Petrovchich, M. A. Mills, K. E. Kingham, R. Koff, N. M. Chun, P. Levonian, A. P. Lebensohn, J. M. Ford, and A. W. Kurian. 2018. Racial/ethnic differences in multiple-gene sequencing results for hereditary cancer risk. Genetics in Medicine 20(2):234–239.

Cooper, R. S., G. N. Nadkarni, and G. Ogedegbe. 2018. Race, ancestry, and reporting in medical journals. JAMA 320(15):1531–1532.

Darst, B. F., L. Madlensky, N. J. Schork, E. J. Topol, and C. S. Bloss. 2014. Characteristics of genomic test consumers who spontaneously share results with their health care provider. Health Communication 29(1):105–108.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Exploring the Current Landscape of Consumer Genomics: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25713.
×

Do, C. B., J. Y. Tung, E. Dorfman, A. K. Kiefer, E. M. Drabant, U. Francke, J. L. Mountain, S. M. Goldman, C. M. Tanner, J. W. Langston, A. Wojcicki, and N. Eriksson. 2011. Web-based genome-wide association study identifies two novel loci and a substantial genetic component for parkinson’s disease. PLOS Genetics 7(6):e1002141.

Fogleman, A. J., W. E. Zahnd, A. E. Lipka, R. S. Malhi, S. Ganai, K. R. Delfino, and W. D. Jenkins. 2019. Knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers towards genetic testing across three rural Illinois communities. Journal of Community Genetics 10(3):417–423.

Goldsmith, L., L. Jackson, A. O’Connor, and H. Skirton. 2012. Direct-to-consumer genomic testing: Systematic review of the literature on user perspectives. European Journal of Human Genetics 20(8):811–816.

Gray, S. W., S. E. Gollust, D. A. Carere, C. A. Chen, A. Cronin, S. S. Kalia, H. Q. Rana, M. T. Ruffin IV, C. Wang, J. S. Roberts, and R. C. Green. 2017. Personal genomic testing for cancer risk: Results from the Impact of Personal Genomics study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 35(6):636–644.

Hollands, G. J., S. C. Whitwell, R. A. Parker, N. J. Prescott, A. Forbes, J. Sanderson, C. G. Mathew, C. M. Lewis, S. Watts, S. Sutton, D. Armstrong, A. L. Kinmonth, A. T. Prevost, and T. M. Marteau. 2012. Effect of communicating DNA based risk assessments for Crohn’s disease on smoking cessation: Randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal 345:e4708.

Hollands, G. J., D. P. French, S. J. Griffin, A. T. Prevost, S. Sutton, S. King, and T. M. Marteau. 2016. The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: Systematic review with meta-analysis. British Medical Journal 352:i1102.

Howlader, N., A.M. Noone, M. Krapcho, D. Miller, A. Brest, M. Yu, J. Ruhl, Z. Tatalovich, A. Mariotto, D. R. Lewis, H. S. Chen, E. J. Feuer, and K. A. Cronin (Eds.). 2019. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2016. National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD. Based on November 2018 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER website, April 2019. https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2016 (accessed January 20, 2020).

IPDGC and WTCCC2 (International Parkinson Disease Genomics Consortium and Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium 2). 2011. A two-stage meta-analysis identifies several new loci for Parkinson’s disease. PLOS Genetics 7(6):e1002142.

Kaphingst, K. A., C. M. McBride, C. Wade, S. H. Alford, R. Reid, E. Larson, A. D. Baxevanis, and L. C. Brody. 2012. Patients’ understanding of and responses to multiplex genetic susceptibility test results. Genetics in Medicine 14(7):681–687.

Khan, R., and D. Mittelman. 2018. Consumer genomics will change your life, whether you get tested or not. Genome Biology 19(1):120.

Khoury, M. J., C. M. McBride, S. D. Schully, J. P. Ioannidis, W. G. Feero, A. C. Janssens, M. Gwinn, D. G. Simons-Morton, J. M. Bernhardt, M. Cargill, S. J. Chanock, G. M. Church, R. J. Coates, F. S. Collins, R. T. Croyle, B. R. Davis, G. J. Downing, A. Duross, S. Friedman, M. H. Gail, G. S. Ginsburg, R. C. Green, M. H. Greene, P. Greenland, J. R. Gulcher, A. Hsu, K. L. Hudson, S. L. Kardia, P. L. Kimmel, M. S. Lauer, A. M. Miller, K. Offit, D. F. Ransohoff, J. S. Roberts, R. S. Rasooly, K. Stefansson, S. F. Terry, S. M. Teutsch, A. Trepanier, K. L. Wanke, J. S. Witte, and J. Xu. 2009. The scientific foundation for personal genomics: Recommendations from a National Institutes of Health–Centers for Disease Control and Prevention multidisciplinary workshop. Genetics in Medicine 11(8):559–567.

Krieger, J. L., F. Murray, J. S. Roberts, and R. C. Green. 2016. The impact of personal genomics on risk perceptions and medical decision-making. Nature Biotechnology 34(9):912–918.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Exploring the Current Landscape of Consumer Genomics: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25713.
×

Kuchenbaecker, K. B., J. L. Hopper, D. R. Barnes, K. A. Phillips, T. M. Mooij, M. J. Roos-Blom, S. Jervis, F. E. van Leeuwen, R. L. Milne, N. Andrieu, D. E. Goldgar, M. B. Terry, M. A. Rookus, D. F. Easton, A. C. Antoniou, L. McGuffog, D. G. Evans, D. Barrowdale, D. Frost, J. Adlard, K. R. Ong, L. Izatt, M. Tischkowitz, R. Eeles, R. Davidson, S. Hodgson, S. Ellis, C. Nogues, C. Lasset, D. Stoppa-Lyonnet, J. P. Fricker, L. Faivre, P. Berthet, M. J. Hooning, L. E. van der Kolk, C. M. Kets, M. A. Adank, E. M. John, W. K. Chung, I. L. Andrulis, M. Southey, M. B. Daly, S. S. Buys, A. Osorio, C. Engel, K. Kast, R. K. Schmutzler, T. Caldes, A. Jakubowska, J. Simard, M. L. Friedlander, S. A. McLachlan, E. Machackova, L. Foretova, Y. Y. Tan, C. F. Singer, E. Olah, A. M. Gerdes, B. Arver, and H. Olsson. 2017. Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA 317(23):2402–2416.

Landry, L., D. E. Nielsen, D. A. Carere, J. S. Roberts, R. C. Green, and P. G. S. Group. 2017. Racial minority group interest in direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Findings from the PGen study. Journal of Community Genetics 8(4):293–301.

Landry, L. G., N. Ali, D. R. Williams, H. L. Rehm, and V. L. Bonham. 2018. Lack of diversity in genomic databases is a barrier to translating precision medicine research into practice. Health Affairs (Millwood) 37(5):780–785.

Mallow, J. A., L. A. Theeke, P. Crawford, E. Prendergast, C. Conner, T. Richards, B. McKown, D. Bush, D. Reed, M. E. Stabler, J. Zhang, G. Dino, and T. L. Barr. 2016. Understanding genomic knowledge in rural Appalachia: The West Virginia Genome Community Project. Online Journal of Rural Nursing and Health Care 16(1):3–22.

Manrai, A. K., B. H. Funke, H. L. Rehm, M. S. Olesen, B. A. Maron, P. Szolovits, D. M. Margulies, J. Loscalzo, and I. S. Kohane. 2016. Genetic misdiagnoses and the potential for health disparities. New England Journal of Medicine 375(7):655–665.

Martin, A. R., M. Kanai, Y. Kamatani, Y. Okada, B. M. Neale, and M. J. Daly. 2019. Clinical use of current polygenic risk scores may exacerbate health disparities. Nature Genetics 51(4):584–591.

Murray, M. F., J. P. Evans, M. Angrist, K. Chan, W. Uhlmann, D. L. Doyle, S. M. Fullerton, T. Ganiats, J. Hagenkord, S. Imhof, S. H. Rim, L. Ortmann, N. Aziz, W. D. Dotson, E. Matloff, K. Young, K. Kaphingst, A. Bradbury, J. Scott, C. Wang, A. Zauber, M. Levine, B. Korf, D. Leonard, C. Wicklund, G. Isham, and M. J. Khoury. 2018. A proposed approach for implementing genomics-based screening programs for healthy adults. NAM Perspectives. Washington, DC: National Academy of Medicine.

Nalls, M. A., C. Blauwendraat, C. L. Vallerga, K. Heilbron, S. Bandres-Ciga, D. Chang, M. Tan, D. A. Kia, A. J. Noyce, A. Xue, J. Bras, E. Young, R. von Coelln, J. Simón-Sánchez, C. Schulte, M. Sharma, L. Krohn, L. Pihlstrom, A. Siitonen, H. Iwaki, H. Leonard, F. Faghri, J. Raphael Gibbs, D. G. Hernandez, S. W. Scholz, J. A. Botia, M. Martinez, J.-C. Corvol, S. Lesage, J. Jankovic, L. M. Shulman, M. Sutherland, P. Tienari, K. Majamaa, M. Toft, O. A. Andreassen, T. Bangale, A. Brice, J. Yang, Z. Gan-Or, T. Gasser, P. Heutink, J. M. Shulman, N. Wood, D. A. Hinds, J. A. Hardy, H. R. Morris, J. Gratten, P. M. Visscher, R. R. Graham, and A. B. Singleton. 2019. Expanding Parkinson’s disease genetics: Novel risk loci, genomic context, causal insights and heritable risk. bioRxiv 388165.

NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2018. Understanding disparities in access to genomic medicine: Proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Nelson, S. C., J. H. Yu, J. K. Wagner, T. M. Harrell, C. D. Royal, and M. J. Bamshad. 2018. A content analysis of the views of genetics professionals on race, ancestry, and genetics. AJOB Empirical Bioethics 9(4):222–234.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Exploring the Current Landscape of Consumer Genomics: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25713.
×

Nelson, S. C., D. J. Bowen, and S. M. Fullerton. 2019. Third-party genetic interpretation tools: A mixed-methods study of consumer motivation and behavior. American Journal of Human Genetics 105(1):122–131.

Oliveri, S., F. Ferrari, A. Manfrinati, and G. Pravettoni. 2018. A systematic review of the psychological implications of genetic testing: A comparative analysis among cardiovascular, neurodegenerative and cancer diseases. Frontiers in Genetics 9:624.

Owusu Obeng, A., K. Fei, K. D. Levy, A. R. Elsey, T. I. Pollin, A. H. Ramirez, K. W. Weitzel, and C. R. Horowitz. 2018. Physician-reported benefits and barriers to clinical implementation of genomic medicine: A multi-site IGNITE-network survey. Journal of Personalized Medicine 8(3):24.

Personalized Medicine Coalition. 2018. Public perspectives on personalized medicine: A survey of U.S. public opinion. Washington, DC: Personalized Medicine Coalition.

Phillips, K. A., J. R. Trosman, and M. P. Douglas. 2019. Emergence of hybrid models of genetic testing beyond direct-to-consumer or traditional labs. JAMA 321(24):2403–2404.

Popejoy, A. B., and S. M. Fullerton. 2016. Genomics is failing on diversity. Nature 538(7624):161–164.

Popejoy, A. B., D. I. Ritter, K. Crooks, E. Currey, S. M. Fullerton, L. A. Hindorff, B. Koenig, E. M. Ramos, E. P. Sorokin, H. Wand, M. W. Wright, J. Zou, C. R. Gignoux, V. L. Bonham, S. E. Plon, and C. D. Bustamante. 2018. The clinical imperative for inclusivity: Race, ethnicity, and ancestry (REA) in genomics. Human Mutation 39(11):1713–1720.

Regalado, A. 2019. More than 26 million people have taken an at-home ancestry test. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612880/more-than-26-million-people-have-taken-an-at-home-ancestry-test (accessed January 23, 2020).

Roberts, J. S., M. C. Gornick, D. A. Carere, W. R. Uhlmann, M. T. Ruffin, and R. C. Green. 2017. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: User motivations, decision making, and perceived utility of results. Public Health Genomics 20(1):36–45.

Rogers, E. 1962. Diffusion of innovations, 3rd ed. New York: The Free Press.

Roth, W. D., and B. Ivemark. 2018. Genetic options: The impact of genetic ancestry testing on consumers’ racial and ethnic identities. American Journal of Sociology 124(1):150–184.

Royal, C. D., J. Novembre, S. M. Fullerton, D. B. Goldstein, J. C. Long, M. J. Bamshad, and A. G. Clark. 2010. Inferring genetic ancestry: Opportunities, challenges, and implications. American Journal of Human Genetics 86(5):661–673.

Salloum, R. G., T. J. George, N. Silver, M.-J. Markham, J. M. Hall, Y. Guo, J. Bian, and E. A. Shenkman. 2018. Rural–urban and racial-ethnic differences in awareness of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. BMC Public Health 18(1):277.

Shim, J. K., S. R. Alam, and B. E. Aouizerat. 2018. Knowing something versus feeling different: The effects and non-effects of genetic ancestry on racial identity. New Genetics and Society 37(1):44–66.

Sugrue, L. P., and R. S. Desikan. 2019. What are polygenic scores and why are they important? JAMA 321(18):1820–1821.

Sussner, K. M., H. S. Thompson, H. B. Valdimarsdottir, W. H. Redd, and L. Jandorf. 2009. Acculturation and familiarity with, attitudes towards and beliefs about genetic testing for cancer risk within Latinas in east Harlem, New York City. Journal of Genetic Counseling 18(1):60–71.

Tandy-Connor, S., J. Guiltinan, K. Krempely, H. LaDuca, P. Reineke, S. Gutierrez, P. Gray, and B. Tippin Davis. 2018. False-positive results released by direct-to-consumer genetic tests highlight the importance of clinical confirmation testing for appropriate patient care. Genetics in Medicine 20(12):1515–1521.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Exploring the Current Landscape of Consumer Genomics: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25713.
×

Ugalmugale, S. 2019. U.S. direct-to-consumer genetic testing market size by test type (carrier testing, predictive testing, ancestry & relationship testing, nutrigenomics testing), by technology (targeted analysis, single nucleotide polymorphism [SNP] chips, whole genome sequencing [WGS]), industry analysis report, application potential, competitive market share & forecast, 2019–2025. Global Market Insights, Inc. https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/us-direct-to-consumer-genetic-testing-market (accessed January 9, 2020).

Vadaparampil, S. T., L. Wideroff, N. Breen, and E. Trapido. 2006. The impact of acculturation on awareness of genetic testing for increased cancer risk among Hispanics in the year 2000 National Health Interview survey. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention 15(4):618–623.

Whitwell, S. C., C. G. Mathew, C. M. Lewis, A. Forbes, S. Watts, J. Sanderson, G. J. Hollands, A. T. Prevost, D. Armstrong, A. L. Kinmonth, S. Sutton, and T. M. Marteau. 2011. Trial protocol: Communicating DNA-based risk assessments for Crohn’s disease: A randomised controlled trial assessing impact upon stopping smoking. BMC Public Health 11:44.

Wojcik, G. L., M. Graff, K. K. Nishimura, R. Tao, J. Haessler, C. R. Gignoux, H. M. Highland, Y. M. Patel, E. P. Sorokin, C. L. Avery, G. M. Belbin, S. A. Bien, I. Cheng, S. Cullina, C. J. Hodonsky, Y. Hu, L. M. Huckins, J. Jeff, A. E. Justice, J. M. Kocarnik, U. Lim, B. M. Lin, Y. Lu, S. C. Nelson, S.-S. L. Park, H. Poisner, M. H. Preuss, M. A. Richard, C. Schurmann, V. W. Setiawan, A. Sockell, K. Vahi, M. Verbanck, A. Vishnu, R. W. Walker, K. L. Young, N. Zubair, V. Acuña-Alonso, J. L. Ambite, K. C. Barnes, E. Boerwinkle, E. P. Bottinger, C. D. Bustamante, C. Caberto, S. Canizales-Quinteros, M. P. Conomos, E. Deelman, R. Do, K. Doheny, L. Fernández-Rhodes, M. Fornage, B. Hailu, G. Heiss, B. M. Henn, L. A. Hindorff, R. D. Jackson, C. A. Laurie, C. C. Laurie, Y. Li, D.-Y. Lin, A. Moreno-Estrada, G. Nadkarni, P. J. Norman, L. C. Pooler, A. P. Reiner, J. Romm, C. Sabatti, K. Sandoval, X. Sheng, E. A. Stahl, D. O. Stram, T. A. Thornton, C. L. Wassel, L. R. Wilkens, C. A. Winkler, S. Yoneyama, S. Buyske, C. A. Haiman, C. Kooperberg, L. Le Marchand, R. J. F. Loos, T. C. Matise, K. E. North, U. Peters, E. E. Kenny, and C. S. Carlson. 2019. Genetic analyses of diverse populations improves discovery for complex traits. Nature 570(7762):514–518.

Wolf, L. E., and L. M. Beskow. 2018. New and improved? 21st Century Cures Act revisions to certificates of confidentiality. American Journal of Law and Medicine 44(2–3):343–358.

Wright, C. F., and S. Gregory-Jones. 2010. Size of the direct-to-consumer genomic testing market. Genetics in Medicine 12(9):594.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Exploring the Current Landscape of Consumer Genomics: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25713.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Exploring the Current Landscape of Consumer Genomics: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25713.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Exploring the Current Landscape of Consumer Genomics: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25713.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Exploring the Current Landscape of Consumer Genomics: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25713.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Exploring the Current Landscape of Consumer Genomics: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25713.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Exploring the Current Landscape of Consumer Genomics: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25713.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Exploring the Current Landscape of Consumer Genomics: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25713.
×
Page 70
Next: Appendix A: Workshop Agenda »
Exploring the Current Landscape of Consumer Genomics: Proceedings of a Workshop Get This Book
×
 Exploring the Current Landscape of Consumer Genomics: Proceedings of a Workshop
Buy Paperback | $57.00 Buy Ebook | $45.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Consumer genomics, encompassing both direct-to-consumer applications (i.e., genetic testing that is accessed by a consumer directly from a commercial company apart from a health care provider) and consumer-driven genetic testing (i.e., genetic testing ordered by a health care provider in response to an informed patient request), has evolved considerably over the past decade, moving from more personal utility-focused applications outside of traditional health care to interfacing with clinical care in nontraditional ways. As consumer genomics has increasingly intersected with clinical applications, discussions have arisen around the need to demonstrate clinical and analytical validity and clinical utility due to the potential for misinterpretation by consumers. Clinical readiness and interest for this information have presented educational and training challenges for providers. At the same time, consumer genomics has emerged as a potentially innovative mechanism for thinking about health literacy and engaging participants in their health and health care.

To explore the current landscape of consumer genomics and the implications for how genetic test information is used or may be used in research and clinical care, the Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine hosted a public workshop on October 29, 2019, in Washington, DC. Discussions included such topics as the diversity of participant populations, the impact of consumer genomics on health literacy and engagement, knowledge gaps related to the use of consumer genomics in clinical care, and regulatory and health policy issues such as data privacy and security. A broad array of stakeholders took part in the workshop, including genomics and consumer genomics experts, epidemiologists, health disparities researchers, clinicians, users of consumer genomics research applications, representatives from patient advocacy groups, payers, bioethicists, regulators, and policy makers. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussion of the workshop.

READ FREE ONLINE

  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!