Talk

Yet again, I’m frustrated by people confusing web access to genetic services with “direct-to-consumer” testing. Today in Science, Katsanis et al. lump DNA Direct’s gold standard services with what journalists at Newsweek are calling “snake oil.”

Contrary to the article published in Science that is being quoted in other news sources, DNA Direct is a healthcare provider just like any bricks-and-mortar genetics center. We provide medical genetic services according to evidence-based guidelines, under the oversight of a Medical Director who is an M.D. geneticist, and with a focus on proper interpretation of test results.

As a clinical provider committed to helping consumers understand genetic test results in context, it is inaccurate to describe our company as “bypassing doctors, who could help consumers interpret and use the findings.” In fact, we routinely work with physician practices to help both the referring physician and their patient access genetic testing and appropriately interpret the results.

You can read DNA Direct’s official reply to Science here, along with more info on our standards and how we meet professional guidelines.

It is my hope that this article by Katsanis et al. will fuel a debate, regardless of misinformation, prejudice or fear-mongering, that will help this industry rapidly mature. Debate can speed action and provide innovative solutions. As an insider commented, “We NEED articles like this—even if the perspective is one we do not share—because the market needs the acceleration and heat of debate.”

For more statistics about genetic testing for drug metabolism, which was the target of this article in Science, see Eye on DNA’s post and the Personalized Medicine Blog’s response.

Update 4/7: The Genetic Genealogist has a good round-up of news coverage and blog posts on this article.  He says, “…my biggest complaint with many of these articles (especially in the popular media) is that they tend to lump together every test that examines DNA. There are different types of genetic testing with different levels of quality control, interpretation, etc. The results, scientific background, and effects of tests offered by large-scale genome scanning companies, clinical entities, direct-to-consumer companies, and pharmacogenetic companies are not the same. When dealing with a readership that does not have a background in genetics (which is probably 99% of the readership), the media should take extra care to note these differences.”

Tags: dna direct, drug metabolism, Genetic Testing, guidelines, katsanis et al, science magazine, standards

This entry was posted on Friday, April 4th, 2008 at 1:20 pm and is filed under Genetic Testing, Personalized Medicine. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.