Because genetic changes that cause cause health complications can be hereditary, the information affects not only the person with the mutation but also their biological relatives.
Forecasts of designer babies followed the announcement of the gene-edited twins, just as they have for any reproductive technology since 1978. This signals the public must learn more about genetics.
He Jiankui, a Chinese researcher, speaks during the Human Genome Editing Conference in Hong Kong, Nov. 28, 2018. He made his first public comments about his claim of making the world’s first gene-edited babies.
AP Photo/Kin Cheung
Chinese researcher He Jiankui told a spellbound audience how he created gene-edited babies. With a couple of revealing slides, we can see what he did and speculate what health problems might ensue.
US Senator Elizabeth Warren recently released the results of a DNA test to support her claim to Native American ancestry.
AAP/MICHAEL REYNOLDS
The question of whether a person can “become” Aboriginal after discovering ancestry through a DNA test is more complicated in Australia.
There are now hundreds of genetic tests that claim to predict the risk of various diseases. All that’s needed is a few drops of blood.
Connect world/Shutterstock.com
Individuals who carry the breast cancer genes BRCA1 or BRCA2 are often unaware of the fact. That suggests that physicians need a new way to apply DNA-based screens to identify those at risk.
Genetic data holds a wealth of health information.
CI Photos/Shutterstock
There is a need for genetic services in low and middle-income countries.
Genetic testing is available to people who want to know if they carry a variant of a gene that confers susceptibility for Alzheimer’s. But knowing whether to get tested is hard.
Billion Photos/Shutterstock.com
Alzheimer’s is not only the third leading cause of death in the U.S. but also the most dreaded diagnosis. Genetic testing can help determine susceptibility, but knowing whether to test isn’t easy.
The results of genetic ancestry tests are grossly over-simplified. A new study shows the tests reinforce what you want to believe rather than offering objective, scientific proof of who you are.
More people are sending off saliva samples to find out about their genetic roots. But the raw DNA results go way beyond genealogical data – and could deliver unintended consequences.
Genetic testing for breast cancer gene mutations is now available. But it could lead to over treatment.
Fotos593/Shutterstock.com
A genetics testing company recently won approval from the FDA to market a test that can identify a breast cancer gene mutation. But what are women supposed to do with that information? There’s risk involved.
DNA testing has its risks, including that you don’t know who will own your genetic data.
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash
Online genetic testing promises many things. Some are the stuff of fantasy, while others, even if scientifically feasible, still carry risks. Consider these five things before ordering a test.
Responsiveness to lithium – the gold standard of bipolar treatment – runs in families.
Francisco Gonzalez/unsplash
It’s exciting to think we’re on the brink of a genomic revolution in health care. But just because new technology becomes available, it doesn’t mean it should automatically be publicly funded.
In 2030, some diseases are defined more specifically than in the past with a focus on their molecular makeup. This is known as precision medicine.
from shutterstock.com
In 2030, there is a boom in precision medicine, where diseases – from cancer to dementia – are defined and targeted more specifically with a focus on their molecular makeup.
Genetic data is used to perform statistical analyses of disease associations.
Shutterstock
The rapid growth of genetic testing and data-gathering could revolutionize health and medicine if governments work to protect people against privacy and societal risks.
Honorary Enterprise Professor, School of Population and Global Health, and Department of General Practice and Primary Care, The University of Melbourne
Visiting Professor in Biomedical Ethics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute; Distinguished Visiting Professor in Law, University of Melbourne; Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics, University of Oxford