That is a questioned asked by UK's TimesOnline. They tackled the suggestion that all babies should have their genome sequenced and cataloged at birth. John Harris, professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester, says, "Yes.":Sequencing the human genome of every child at birth would lead to a wonderful increase in knowledge, but whether it is cost-effective procedure is doubtful. But I am in favour of the principle. People should be able to choose to do this for their children if they wish, and my “yes” will be firmer when this is more affordable.
Dr Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch UK, says, "No.":
Gene tests are poor predictors of common diseases and none meets medical screening criteria for the general population. The way that multiple biological and environmental factors interact to cause most diseases in most people is poorly understood and — like most complex systems — never likely to lead to reliable predictions. This means that rival companies’ genetic risk assessments will often disagree. One scientific study found that half the genes in tests already being sold are not likely to be linked to the claimed diseases.
This is tricky question. Should a complete genome sequence be mandatory at birth? Never! Should it be available to parents who want it for their children? Possibly, but I worry about the future implications. I am afraid such information will further degrade the inherent dignity of the human person down to a simple sequences of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts..
The problem with genetic testing is clinical relevance. What do I mean by that? Well, essentially it means how well a particular gene test can predict a physical outcome. As Dr. Wallace says, many genetic tests currently are not great predictors of future disease. In most cases, just because you have a particular gene variant does not mean you are destined to exhibit physical symptoms associated with that variant.
Will clinical relevance get better? Of course, but my fear is that when a whole genome sequence is available and affordable to the general public, society will put too much importance on the information it provides. The problem, even now, is that often genetic test results for a single gene are not being interpreted properly. Or if they are, the patient does not understand the implications. Imagine if it the information covered hundreds or even thousands of genes?
I think genetic information is very useful, but there is a very fine line between genetic information and genetic determinism. Will parents use a child's genetics to pigeonhole them into some predetermined genetic box? I am pretty sure that will happen. Some companies are already offering tests for athletic abilities for children as young as one. Dr. Lei at Eye on DNA comments:
Parents walk a tightrope every day. We either feel that we’re too soft on our children or that we pressure them too much. Push them too little and they may fail to achieve their full potential. Push them too much and they rebel and go the opposite way, sometimes ending in tragedy.
With genetic test results in hand, parents may feel tempted to wave it in the child’s face and say, “But you can’t give up! Your destiny is here. You have two copies of the ACTN3 gene. You were born to be a track and field star.”
Unfortunately, while this attitude may prevail, it is certainly flawed. We are now finding that it is not just what genes you inherit, it is what genes are being expressed. This field of study is called epigenetics and it focuses on how genes are turned on and off and why. I found an interesting study on identical twins at the Economist. Art Petronis at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto looked at epigenetic differences between identical twins. He found that just because identical twins have the same sequence of DNA, does not mean their genes are expressed in the same way. So how identical are identical twins? “Not as identical as you might think”:
Dr Petronis and his team therefore looked at methylation patterns in DNA from cheek swabs, blood samples and gut biopsies that had been collected from 57 pairs of monozygotic twins. They uncovered a significant amount of variation between twins, possibly enough to explain why apparently heritable diseases that require the coincidence of several genetic risk-factors do not, in practice, always appear in both twins. Schizophrenia, for example, has a family component. But if one twin of a monozygotic pair develops it, there is only a 50% chance that the other will too, rather than the 100% chance that you would see if the sequence of genetic “letters” in the DNA were the only cause.
I fear that if babies routinely have their whole genomes sequenced, then genetic determinism would be rampant, much to the detriment of society. I truly feel that we run the risk of reducing mankind to a sequence of nucleotides. More genetic discrimination and eugenics are sure to follow. This is something Pope Benedict XVI expressly warned us against:
"The people of our time sensitized by the terrible vicissitudes that have covered the 20th century and the very beginning of this one in mourning, are able to understand that man's dignity is not identified with his DNA genes and that it does not diminish with the eventual presence of physical differences or genetic defects."
