Stanford Law School’s Center for Law and the Biosciences held a conference Monday to tackle the increasingly important question, ‘How Should the U.S. Regulate Genetic Testing?’
I attended the conference along with some hundred others to hear twenty experts address the question from various perspectives: government, professional, payor, industry, and academic. Notably, social and ethical perspectives were not explicitly included, and only inched in at the peripheries.
Nonetheless, the conference was fascinating and incredibly informative. The biggest take-away of the day was that better regulation of genetic testing is certainly needed, but that it is a hugely complicated problem, from every perspective.
Center Director Hank Greely asserted that population-wide, next-generation sequencing will be the future and asked how we can maximize the benefits of this coming sea change while minimizing the harms. This may be obvious, but it’s actually critical, since in some cases people are receiving life–and-death information of relevance to the whole family from these tests.
The timing of the conference couldn’t have been any better, since the FDA just released its draft guidance on laboratory developed tests (LDTs) for comment, and will be holding a webinar October 23 to address questions. While not all genetic tests are LDTs, an awful lot are, and the FDA has good reason to cast light on this opaque world:
The FDA has identified problems with several high-risk LDTs including: claims that are not adequately supported with evidence; lack of appropriate controls yielding erroneous results; and falsification of data. The FDA is concerned that people could initiate unnecessary treatment or delay or forego treatment altogether for a health condition, which could result in illness or death.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.