The last week has seen a lot of chatter about the slapping down of the diagnostic patent by Sequenom, Judge Invalidates Patent for a Down Syndrome Test:
A federal judge has invalidated the central patent underlying a noninvasive method of detecting Down syndrome in fetuses without the risk of inducing a miscarriage.
The ruling is a blow to Sequenom, a California company that introduced the first such noninvasive test in 2011 and has been trying to lock out competitors in a fast-growing market by claiming they infringe on the patent.
Sequenom’s stock fell 23 percent on Thursday, to $1.92.
The judge, Susan Illston of the United States District Court in Northern California, issued a ruling on Wednesday that the patent was invalid because it covered a natural phenomenon — the presence of DNA from the fetus in the mother’s blood.
The existence of intellectual property is a utilitarian one. That is, these are institutions which are meant to further the cause of creativity and innovation. Is there going to be an abandonment in this domain of the push toward technological innovation? Coincidentally in the last week of October Sequenom put out a press release which heralded some advances in its panel:
Slate reposts a piece from New Scientist, Do You Really Want To Know Your Baby’s Genetics? It is arranged as a series of questions which might arise from the new information. For me my frustration with this sort of discussion is rooted in reviewing old articles about “test-tube babies” in major newspapers from the 1970s and early 1980s. Today in vitro fertilization is banal and commonplace, but many of the same concerns were voiced back then which you see cropping up now in regards to personal genomics. My issue is not concern as such, but its inchoate character. It is not uncommon for me to encounter people pursuing postgraduate work in science who express the opinion that “it’s scary,” the “it” being genetic information. When further queried the fear is generally layers upon layers of formless disquiet, some confusion about the specific details, as well as a default stance toward the “precautionary principle.”
Genomes Unzipped points me to a Nature survey on personal genomics for scientific researchers. With price points down to $200 or so many scientists have been at least genotyped. Though it varies by domain. Many molecular biologists seem intrigued by the novelty of personal genotyping services. In contrast, in a room of a dozen or so population geneticists and the like nearly half are liable to have already gone through some service.
All that being said, I haven’t heard from people who want to make their genotype public in a long, long, time. Has the steam run out of that project? You might hear from me again with a subtle twist on this in the near future.
I was having a discussion with some friends who have all expressed interest in being genotyped or have been about putting their information into the public domain. They were a pretty savvy lot (half of the six had been genotyped), but one expressed the common sense objection that “someone could find something in the future.” In other words, a really creepy stalker could keep running your data through Promethease. Imagine you’re a really strange person, and you have a bunch of gentoypes of people who you want to know about, and you design a program which scours the academic literature and constantly notifies you when the individuals in your database pop up with a large effect mutation. I have no idea why someone would do this. Perhaps you could be blackmailed by someone threatening to disclose to your employer than you had a 50% greater chance of a heart attack before the age of 60 than the general population? Whatever the details of the concern, they’re general, ranging from inchoate to eloquent.
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests give inaccurate predictions of disease risks and many European geneticists believe that some of them should be banned, the annual conference of the European Society of Human Genetics heard May 31….
Here’s the abstract for the talk which argued that DTC companies don’t give the best disease risk estimates:
Objective: Direct-to-consumer (DTC) companies predict risks of common complex diseases on the basis of genetic markers. Given the low number of markers involved and their small effect sizes, it is unclear whether high-risk groups can be identified. We investigated the risk distributions generated by two DTC companies for 8 diseases.
Methods: We simulated genotype data for 100,000 individuals based on published genotype frequencies. Predicted risks were obtained using the formulas and risk data provided by the companies.
Results: The table presents observed and trimmed ranges of predicted risks. The two companies used different formulas to calculate risks. One company predicted risks higher than 100% for 5 out of 8 diseases, which for AMD concerned 1 in 200 individuals. Observed ranges were smaller for the second company, except for Type 1 Diabetes. Predicted risks higher than 50% were frequently observed for company 1, but were exceptions for company 2. When predicted risks of company 1 were calculated using the formulas of company 2, observed ranges were substantially smaller.
Since I don’t put much stock in the small effect disease risk predictions currently, I am not surprised. But I’d be curious to look at the guts of their results. This was presented at conference, so some caution has to enter into the picture. The main issue I’d always want to emphasize with critiques of the lack of efficacy of DTC is that they need to be evaluated against the baseline of the limits to the efficacy of medical professionals and medicine in general. Genomics and DNA doesn’t make something magical, whether for good or ill.
The second presentation covered in the ScienceDaily release is kind of more disturbing to me. Here’s the abstract:
I’ve been pretty vocal about the impending specter of genetic paternalism in relation to personal genomics, which I believe to be futile in the long term, and likely to squelch innovation in the United States in the short term. Like any new product category there’s a lot of hype and confusion in the area of personal genomics, but I think it’s important that we allow some mistakes and misfires to occur. Innovation and creativity isn’t failure-free.
With that said, I also think it is incumbent upon the personal genomics community, if there is such a thing, to “police” the flow of information. I have seen references in the media to a new personal genomics kit, Sports X Factor, selling for $180, from AIBioTech. My initial intent was to ignore this, as there is real science and tech to be covered. This is just another case of a biotech firm trying to leverage public confusion and gullibility into revenue. But if I think such a thing, I should make my opinion known, shouldn’t I?
Like John Hawks I get a fair number of questions from students. Some of them seem legit and I try and answer them, but sometimes they’re asking detailed things which would take me too long and it falls out of my task stack. And alas on occasion they’re clearly straight up asking me to write their paper from what I can tell. But today I got an interesting email from a doctoral student in England who found me via twitter and my blog, and was wondering if I could fill in an online survey for her research. It took me all of 5 minutes, so if you want to help them out (I’m thinking this is a painless way to increase someone’s sample size):
To fill in the survey, please:
Click here if you have bought a genetic test. (If you have bought a test but haven’t recieved your results yet, please still follow this link and just ignore any questions you can’t answer).
Click here if you are thinking of buying a genetic test.
Mischa Angrist and Brendan Maher point me to two interest personal genomics related stories. First, a follow up on inadvertent uncovering of incest story from last winter in GenomeWeb, Incidental Findings:
Recently, he and his colleagues encountered a case in which a married mother of three children with cognitive and developmental disabilities — the eldest of which she conceived in a previous union — opted to submit their genetic samples for screening. The researchers discovered a span of homozygosity that indicated the oldest child was the product of an incestuous conception between first-degree relatives. When they informed the mother of what they found, Beaudet says she vehemently denied such a relationship and demanded that the test be repeated. “The test was repeated and [the result] was the same,” he says. “And then she sort of broke down and said: ‘My husband will divorce me if he finds out about this.’ … There are just a lot of difficult things that come up.”
A few years ago professionals had discussions about whether they should even divulge this sort of information which might destabilize the family unit. In particular in relation to paternity. I think that’s a moot point, the horse has left the barn. Unless there’s a proactive effort by the powers that be to prevent consumers to from having any access to their own genetic information not facing up to these issues in the short run is probably just a matter of kicking the ball down the field. The only cases where I think it might be prudent would be when individuals have very short life expectancies, those with terminal conditions or the elderly. Otherwise you’re trying to run out a clock which will explode in your face.
Speaking of kicking the ball down the field, should children be tested for “adult” diseases? Some people think not, Parents ‘want child gene tests’:
Dr. Daniel MacAthur & Dan Vorhaus offer their takes on the recent hearings in Congress on the direct-to-consumer genomics industry, A sad day for personal genomics & “From Gulf Oil to Snake Oil”: Congress Takes Aim at DTC Genetic Testing. I guess I lean toward light regulation. I don’t think that DTC personal genomics will result in systemic decrease in human happiness, and tight regulation will increase the costs of innovation and constrain access and reduce affordability. Though I guess that for some that’s a feature, not a bug.
My main point, which I think I got across on the Genomes Unzipped comments is that fraud, error and misrepresentation are rife across many health-related sectors in American society. The nutrition and diet industry are prime examples. Bad journalism on the health beat causes way more suffering than DTC genomics kits ever will, as people who are not intelligent make precipitous decisions based on the latest result which managed to slip through the p-value gauntlet and are sexy enough to be written up in USA Today. And, there are widespread distortions within our health care sector which really need to be addressed (I’m thinking in particular of frank talk about end of life palliative care). With that as the basis for judgement I don’t think that the fraud and misrepresentation one can find in DTC personal genomics is exceptionally worrisome or notable to warrant such attention or focus. This is an inefficient allocation of concern and regulatory resources, driven more by the industry’s puffed up claims and the apocalyptic projections of the skeptics.