Search

Consistently, the field of genetic counseling has advocated that parents be advised to defer elective genetic testing of minors until adulthood to prevent a range of potential harms, including stigma, discrimination, and the loss of the child's ability to decide for him- or herself as an adult. However, consensus around the policy of "defer-when-possible" obscures the extent to which this norm is currently under siege. Increasingly, routine use of full or partial genome sequencing challenges our ability to control what is discovered in childhood or, when applied in a prenatal context, even before birth. The expansion of consumer-initiated genetic testing services challenges our ability to restrict what is available to minors. As the barriers to access crumble, medical professionals should proceed with caution, bearing in mind potential risks and continuing to assess the impact of genetic testing on this vulnerable population., (Copyright © 2020 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; all rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All the authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Direct to consumer laboratory testing is a rapidly growing industry. However, the idea of consumers ordering their own laboratory tests has raised ethical concerns. Respect for autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice are core principles of biomedical ethics. Although direct to consumer testing would seem to offer autonomy to consumers, autonomy is only maintained if certain criteria are met, including intentionality, understanding, and noncontrol. There is little published evidence to support either beneficence or maleficence of direct to consumer testing. Finally, there are conflicting opinions about the justice of direct to consumer testing and whether it increases or decreases health disparities., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The rapidly evolving popularity of direct-to-consumer genetic genealogy companies has made it possible to retrieve genomic information for unintended reasons by third parties, including the emerging use for law enforcement purposes. The question remains whether users of direct-to-consumer genetic genealogy companies and genealogical databases are aware that their genetic and/or genealogical data could be used as means to solving forensic cases. Our review of 22 companies' and databases' policies showed that only four companies have provided additional information on how law enforcement agencies should request permission to use their services for law enforcement purposes. Moreover, two databases have adopted a different approach by providing a special service for law enforcement. Although all companies and databases included in the study provide at least some provisions about police access, there is an ongoing debate over the ethics of these practices, and how to balance users' privacy with law enforcement requests.

The direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) market has been developing for about twenty years now, raising various debates, even controversies. But what about the regulation of these so-called "innovative" devices, but whose medical status is ambiguous? A first regulatory aspect is depending on the market itself, since the latter is currently subjected to a strong structuring process. A second regulatory aspect, more classical, is the legal one. While the DTC-GT status has long been unclear on European scale, a new text (a Regulation, not a Directive) is modifying the situation. It encourages regulation "by the market" rather than "by the medical profession", which does not imply that the latter will have no (indirect) impact on the DTC-GT market., (© 2020 médecine/sciences – Inserm.)

Background : Personal genomic testing (PGT) offers individuals genetic information about relationships, wellness, sporting ability, and health. PGT is increasingly accessible online, including in emerging markets such as Australia. Little is known about what consumers expect from these tests and whether their reflections on testing resonate with bioethics concepts such as autonomy. Methods: We report findings from focus groups and semi-structured interviews that explored attitudes to and experiences of PGT. Focus group participants had little experience with PGT, while interview participants had undergone testing. Recordings were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings were critically interpreted with reference to bioethics scholarship on autonomy. Results: Fifty-six members of the public participated in seven focus groups, and 40 individuals were interviewed separately. Both groups valued the choice of PGT, and believed that it could motivate relevant actions. Focus group themes centered on the perceived value of choices, knowledge enabling action and knowledge about the self. Interview themes suggest that participants reflexively engage with their PGT information to make meaning, and that some appreciate its shortcomings. Critical interpretation of findings shows that while consumers of PGT are able to exercise a degree of autonomy in choosing, they may not be able to achieve a substantive conceptualization of autonomy, one that promotes alignment with higher-order desires. Conclusions : PGT consumers can critically reason about testing. However, they may uncritically accept test results, may not appreciate drawbacks of increased choice, or may overestimate the potential for information to motivate behavioral change. While consumers appear to be capable of substantive autonomy, they do so without ongoing support from companies. PGT companies promote a problematic ("default") account of autonomy, reliant on empowerment rhetoric. This leaves consumers vulnerable to making decisions inconsistent with their higher-order desires. As PGT expands, claims about its power and value need to be carefully drawn.

Rapid developments in genome technology and a growing interest in personalized healthcare have led to a large rise in the range and use of commercial DNA tests, the so-called direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GT). DTC-GT can be of a non-medical (e.g. for external characteristics) or medical nature; medical tests mostly indicate relative risks of disease e.g. Alzheimer's disease or certain forms of cancer. Low clinical validity and frequently unknown analytical validity of DTC-GT make it difficult to estimate the clinical usefulness of test results. From an ethical perspective, an increase in autonomy and possible health benefits must be weighed against loss of privacy, inadequate provision of information and the risk of misinterpretation of results, over-diagnosis, overtreatment and higher healthcare costs. It is unclear whether providing and implementing DTC-GT require authorisation under Dutch law in the Population Screening Act (Wet op het Bevolkingsonderzoek) or the Special Medical Procedures Act (Wet op BijzondereMedischeVerrichtingen). Clinical utility of DTC-GT can only increase if there is greater clarity on interpretation and scope of the law and regulations, when DTC-GT companies provide better information and guidance for consumers and when there is more focus on DTC-GT in education and training programmes for healthcare professionals.

In an effort to meet ethical obligations and/or participant expectations, researchers may consider offering "raw" or uninterpreted genetic data for result return. It is therefore important to understand the motivations, behaviors, and perspectives of individuals who might choose to access raw data before such return becomes routine. In the direct-to-consumer (DTC) context, where raw data are often made available to customers, the use of third-party interpretation tools has raised concerns about genotype accuracy, data privacy, reliability of interpretation, and consumption of limited health care resources. However, relatively little is known about why individuals access raw data or what they do with the information received from third-party interpretation. Accordingly, we conducted a survey on raw data access and third-party tool usage among 1,137 DTC customers recruited through social media. Most survey respondents (89%) reported downloading their raw data. Among downloaders, 94% used at least one tool, most commonly Promethease (63%) or GEDmatch (84%). More than half (56%) used both health-related and non-health-related tools and differed significantly from those who used only one tool type in terms of demographics, participation in research, DTC tests ordered, and testing motivations. Exploratory interviews were conducted with 10 respondents and illustrated how social networking, initial lack of interesting findings, and general curiosity contributed to use of multiple tool types. These results suggest that even when initially motivated by ancestry and genealogy, consumers frequently also pursue health information in a largely unregulated and expanding suite of third-party tools, raising both challenges and opportunities for the professional genetics community., (Copyright © 2019 American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The wearable neurotechnology market targets consumers with promises of cognitive benefit and personal wellness. Scientific evidence is essential to substantiate claims about utility, safety, and efficacy and for informed choice and public trust., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Millions of people have taken direct-to-consumer DNA tests, but not everyone is happy with the status quo. Several startups in the genetic testing space are aiming to empower individuals and build communities in order to boost research and, ultimately, public health., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) has been available for several years now, with varying degrees of regulation across different countries. Despite a restrictive legal framework it is possible for consumers to order genetic tests from companies located in other countries. However, German laypeople's awareness and perceptions of DTC GT services is still unexplored. We conducted seven focus groups (participants n = 43) with German laypeople to explore their perceptions of and attitudes towards commercial genetic testing and its ethical implications. Participants were critical towards DTC GT. Criticism was directed at health-related, predictive testing, while lifestyle tests were accepted and even welcomed to some extent. Participants expressed strong reservations regarding commercial provision of genetic diagnostics and expressed a lack of trust in respective companies. They preferred non-commercial distribution within the public healthcare system. Participants also expressed high expectations of physicians' abilities to interpret information obtained via DTC GT companies and provide counseling. Legal restrictions on commercial distribution of genetic tests were opposed, with participants arguing that it should be available to consumers. DTC GT companies are not perceived as trustworthy when compared to the public healthcare system and its professional ethical standards and practices. Laypeople rated general consumer autonomy higher than their own concerns, thus recommending against strong legal regulation. We conclude that medicine's trustworthiness may be negatively affected if commercial provision is not visibly opposed by the medical professions, while DTC GT companies may gain in trustworthiness if they adapt to standards and practices upheld in medicine.

Background: Nutrigenetic tests are often considered to be less serious compared to other health-related genetic tests, although they share similar ethical concerns. Nutrigenetic tests are mainly available through direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) and increasing in popularity., Objective: To analyze the contents of nutrigenetic DTC GT websites with respect to the adequacy of the information provided to support a well-informed decision of purchasing the tests., Methods: The websites of DTC GT companies selling nutrigenetic tests that could be ordered online without involving any healthcare professional, available in English, marketing tests in Europe, the USA, Australia, or Canada, and accessible from Finland were included in the study (n = 38). Quantitative and qualitative content analyses of the websites were carried out with the help of a codebook., Results: Of the 38 websites, 8 included a clearly identifiable and easy-to-find information section about genetics. The quality and contents of these sections were often insufficient and/or misleading. Fourteen websites had specific sections discussing the risks related to GT, and on 13 signed informed consent was requested for GT. Furthermore, only 2 of the companies offered any kind of pretest consultation and 13 offered mostly separately charged posttest consultation. The complex structure of the websites made it difficult to find all key information, with many important aspects buried in legal documents, which were challenging to comprehend even for a professional., Conclusion: The structure of the websites and the amount and quality of the content therein do not support a well-informed decision., (© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Loi recently proposed a libertarian right to direct to consumer genetic testing (DTCGT)- independent of autonomy or utility-reflecting Cohen's work on self-ownership and Hohfeld's model of jural relations. Cohen's model of libertarianism dealt principally with self-ownership of the physical body. Although Loi adequately accounts for the physical properties of DNA, DNA is also an informational substrate, highly conserved within families. Information about the genome of relatives of the person undergoing testing may be extrapolated without requiring direct engagement with their personal physical copy of the genome, triggering rights and interests of relatives that may differ from the rights and interests of others, that is, individual consumers, testing providers and regulators. Loi argued that regulatory interference with exercise of the right required justification, whereas prima facie exercise of the right did not. Justification of regulatory interference could include 'conflict with other people's rights', 'aggressive' use of the genome and 'harming others'. Harms potentially experienced by relatives as a result of the individual's exercise of a right to test include breach of genetic privacy, violation of their right to determine when, and if, they undertake genetic testing and discrimination. Such harms may justify regulatory intervention, in the event they are recognised; motives driving 'aggressive' use of the genome may also be relevant. Each of the above criteria requires clarification, as potential redundancies and tensions exist between them, with different implications affecting different groups of rights holders., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

In an increasingly data-driven age of medicine, do companies that offer genetic testing directly to patients represent an important part of personalising care, or a dangerous threat to privacy? Should we celebrate this new mechanism of patient involvement, or fear its implications?The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge addressed these issues in the 10th annual Medical Ethics Varsity Debate, through the motion: "This House Regrets the Rise of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing". This article summarises and extends key arguments made in the debate, exploring the impacts of such genetic testing on both the individual patient and broader society, with special consideration as to whether companies can ever truly guarantee anonymity of genetic data.

This study reports on 13 semistructured in-depth interviews to qualitatively explore the experiences of individuals who publicly shared their direct-to-consumer genetic testing results on the platform openSNP. In particular, we focused on interviewees' understanding of privacy. Participants reported that the likelihood and the magnitude of privacy harms depend on gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, the stigma associated with certain clinical conditions, the existence of adequate legislation, and the nature of national health care systems. Some participants expressed the view that those who enjoy higher socioeconomic status or are better protected by their country's legislation have a responsibility to share their genetic data. Our study shows that people who share their genetic data publicly online-far from being insensitive to privacy risks-have a complex understanding of the social, relational, and contextual nature of genetic privacy.

In this case, a primary care physician is presented with direct-to-consumer genetic test results and asked to provide counseling and order follow-up diagnostics. In order to deal effectively with this situation, we suggest physicians need look no further than the practice principles that guide more routine clinical encounters. We examine the rationale behind 2 major clinical ethical considerations: (1) physicians have obligations to help their patients achieve reasonable health goals but are not obligated to perform procedures that are not medically indicated; and (2) primary care physicians do not need to know everything; they just need to know how to get their patients appropriate care., (© 2018 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

Regulatory compliance in the direct-to-consumer genetic testing market is highly sophisticated as there are numerous federal, state, and ethical barriers to entry. In 2010, amid an underregulated market, 23andMe sought to do what few companies in the medical industry had attempted before-disregard the guidance and requests of the US Food and Drug Administration. This regulatory strategy effectively destined the company's Personal Genome Service for failure; however, the company changed course and has been granted several regulatory clearances. This exemplifies the importance of a healthy relationship with regulatory agencies, although challenges remain. The DTC industry continues to have a perplexing regulatory framework at both the federal and state level. There are also ethical concerns with the monetization of deidentified genetic health information, as genetic data have an inherent level of identifiability and are not fully protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule in these scenarios. Although some DTC tests are now cleared in the United States, the concern that a learned intermediary is needed for interpretation of results remains. The regulatory oversight of this market will need to continue to develop to ensure the protection of consumer health and privacy.

Background: Commercial genetic testing offered over the internet, known as direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT), currently is under ethical attack. A common critique aims at the limited validation of the tests as well as the risk of psycho-social stress or adaption of incorrect behavior by users triggered by misleading health information. Here, we examine in detail the specific role of advertising communication of DTC GT companies from a medical ethical perspective. Our argumentative analysis departs from the starting point that DTC GT operates at the intersection of two different contexts: medicine on the one hand and the market on the other. Both fields differ strongly with regard to their standards of communication practices and the underlying normative assumptions regarding autonomy and responsibility., Methods: Following a short review of the ethical contexts of medical and commercial communication, we provide case examples for persuasive messages of DTC GT websites and briefly analyze their design with a multi-modal approach to illustrate some of their problematic implications., Results: We observe three main aspects in DTC GT advertising communication: (1) the use of material suggesting medical professional legitimacy as a trust-establishing tool, (2) the suggestion of empowerment as a benefit of using DTC GT services and (3) the narrative of responsibility as a persuasive appeal to a moral self-conception., Conclusions: While strengthening and respecting the autonomy of a patient is the focus in medical communication, specifically genetic counselling, persuasive communication is the normal mode in marketing of consumer goods, presuming an autonomous, rational, independent consumer. This creates tension in the context of DTC GT regarding the expectation and normative assessment of communication strategies. Our analysis can even the ground for a better understanding of ethical problems associated with intersections of medical and commercial communication and point to perspectives of analysis of DTC GT advertising.

Background: With the availability of raw DNA generated from direct-to-consumer (DTC) testing companies, there has been a proliferation of third-party online services that are available to interpret the raw data for both genealogy and/or health purposes. This study examines the current landscape and downstream clinical implications of consumer use of third-party services., Methods: Study participants were recruited online from social media platforms. A total of 321 survey respondents reported using third-party services for raw DNA interpretation., Results: Participants were highly motivated to explore raw DNA for ancestral information (67%), individual health implications (62%), or both (40%). Participants primarily used one of seven companies to interpret raw DNA; 73% used more than one. Company choice was driven by the type of results offered (51%), price (45%), and online reviews (31%). Approximately 30% of participants shared results with a medical provider and 21% shared with more than one. Outcomes of sharing ranged from disinterest/discounting of the information to diagnosis of genetic conditions. Participants were highly satisfied with their decision to analyze raw DNA (M = 4.54/5), yet challenges in understanding interpretation results were reported irrespective of satisfaction ratings., Conclusion: Consumers face challenges in understanding the results and may seek out clinical assistance in interpreting their raw DNA results., (© 2017 The Authors. Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

In the wake of recent regulations targeting direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT), an increasing number of websites have emerged that offer consumers alternative means to derive health information from their DTC-GT raw data. While the ethical concerns associated with DTC-GT have been extensively discussed in the literature, the implications of third party interpretation (TPI) websites have remained largely unexplored. Here we sought to describe these services and elucidate their ethical implications in the context of the current DTC-GT debate. We reviewed five popular TPI websites that use SNP-based genomic data to report health-related information: Promethease, Interpretome, LiveWello, Codegen.eu, and Enlis Personal. We found that many of the ethical concerns previously described in DTC-GT also applied to TPI websites, including inadequate informed consent, questionable clinical validity and utility, and lack of medical supervision. However, some concerns about data usage and privacy reported in DTC-GT were less prominent in the five TPI websites we studied: none of them sold or shared user data, and 3/5 sites did not retain data in the long term. In addition, while exaggerated claims and inaccurate advertising have been frequently problematic in DTC-GT, advertising was minimal in the TPI sites we assessed, and 4/5 made no claims of health benefits. Overall, TPI adds a new dimension to the ethical debate surrounding DTC-GT, and awareness of these services will become increasingly important as personal genomics continues to expand. This study constitutes the first detailed ethical analysis of these services, and presents a starting point for further research and ethical reflection.

A variety of health-related genetic testing is currently advertized directly to consumers. This article provides a timely overview of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) and salient ethical issues, as well as an analysis of the impact of the recently adopted regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices on DTC GT. DTC GT companies currently employ new testing approaches, report on a wide spectrum of conditions and target new groups of consumers. Such activities raise ethical issues including the questionable analytic and clinical validity of tests, the adequacy of informed consent, potentially misleading advertizing, testing in children, research uses and commercialization of genomic data. The recently adopted regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices may limit the offers of predisposition DTC GT in the EU market.

The declining cost of DNA sequencing has been accompanied by a proliferation of companies selling 'direct-to-consumer genetic testing' (DTC-GT) services. Many of these are marketed online as tools for enabling citizens to make more informed decisions about their health, wellness and lifestyle. We assessed the 'information for consumers' provided by these companies at the prepurchase stage, which could influence initial decisions to part with money, data or tissue samples. A scoping exercise revealed 65 DTC-GT companies advertising their services online to consumers in the United Kingdom, of which 15 met our inclusion criteria. We benchmarked their consumer information against the good practice principles developed by the UK Human Genetics Commission (HGC). No provider complied with all the HGC principles and overall levels of compliance varied considerably. Although consent for testing was discussed by all but one company, information about data reuse for research or other purposes was often sparse and consent options limited or unclear. Most did not provide supplementary support services to help users better understand or cope with the implications of test results. We provide recommendations for updating the preconsumer transparency aspects of the HGC guidelines to ensure their fitness-for-purpose in this rapidly changing market. We also recommend improving coordination between relevant governance bodies to ensure minimum standards of transparency, quality and accountability. Although DTC-GT has many potential benefits, close partnership between consumers, industry and government, along with interdisciplinary science input, are essential to ensure that these innovations are used ethically and responsibly.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) internet companies are selling widely advertised and highly popular genetic ancestry tests to the broad public. These tests are often classified as falling within the scope of so-called 'recreational genetics', but little is known about the impact of using these services. In this study, a particular focus is whether minors (and under what conditions) should be able to participate in the use of these DTC tests. Current ancestry tests are easily able to reveal whether participants are related and can, therefore, also reveal misattributed paternity, with implications for the minors and adults involved in the testing. We analysed the publicly available privacy policies and terms of services of 43 DTC genetic ancestry companies to assess whether minors are able to participate in testing DTC genetic ancestry, and also whether and how companies ethically account for the potential of paternity inference. Our results indicated that the majority of DTC genetic ancestry testing companies do not specifically address whether minors are able to participate in testing. Furthermore, the majority of the policies and terms of services fail to mention the vulnerability of minors and family members in receiving unexpected information, in particular, in relation to (misattributed) paternity. Therefore, recreational genetics carries both the risk of unintentionally revealing misidentified paternity, and also the risk that fathers will deliberately use these services to test their children's paternity without revealing their intentions to the mother or any other third party.

Purpose: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) has become a convenient method to help people to understand their genetic makeup. Owing in part to concerns regarding confidentiality, privacy, and secondary use of data, professional and government bodies created guidelines to promote transparency among these companies. Using a comprehensive and systematic approach, this study assessed DTC-GT company compliance with international transparency guidelines., Methods: A framework analysis was performed on 30 DTC-GT health and/or ancestry websites identified using a US-based online search strategy during the summer of 2015. A codebook was developed from a synthesis of relevant guidelines from seven DTC-GT guideline documents and applied to each website., Results: Although most companies met guidelines related to transparency regarding security protocols, storage procedures, and third-party disclosures, few met guidelines regarding sharing risks from data disclosures. Additionally, few companies disclosed how long data would be kept for services or research. Use of data for research was frequently mentioned only in privacy policies and terms of service documents, and only two-thirds of companies required an additional consent to use consumer data for health-related research., Conclusion: Our analysis shows that DTC-GT companies do not consistently meet international transparency guidelines related to confidentiality, privacy, and secondary use of data.Genet Med advance online publication 22 September 2016.

People for and against direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomic tests are arguing around two issues: first, on whether an autonomy-based account can justify the tests; second, on whether the tests bring any personal utility. Bunnik et al, in an article published in this journal, were doubtful on the latter, especially in clinically irrelevant and uninterpretable sequences, and how far this claim could go in the justification. Here we argue that personal utility is inherent to DTC genomic tests and their results. We discuss Bunnik et al's account of personal utility and identify problems in its motivation and application. We then explore concepts like utility and entertainment which suggest that DTC genomic tests bring personal utility to their consumers, both in the motivation and the content of the tests. This points to an alternative account of personal utility which entails that entertainment value alone is adequate to justify DTC genomic tests, given appropriate strategies to communicate tests results with the consumers. It supports the autonomy-based justification of the test by showing that DTC genomic test itself stands as a valuable option and facilitates meaningful choice of the people., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

I sketch a libertarian argument for the right to test in the context of 'direct to consumer' (DTC) genetic testing. A libertarian right to genetic tests, as defined here, relies on the idea of a moral right to self-ownership. I show how a libertarian right to test can be inferred from this general libertarian premise, at least as a prima facie right, shifting the burden of justification on regulators. I distinguish this distinctively libertarian position from some arguments based on considerations of utility or autonomy, which are sometimes labelled 'libertarian' because they oppose a tight regulation of the direct to consumer genetic testing sector. If one takes the libertarian right to test as a starting point, the whole discussion concerning autonomy and personal utility may be sidestepped. Finally, I briefly consider some considerations that justify the regulation of the DTC genetic testing market, compatible with the recognition of a prima facie right to test., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

The stories in this volume shed light on the potential of narrative inquiry to fill gaps in knowledge, particularly given the mixed results of quantitative research on patient views of and experiences with genetic and genomic testing. Published studies investigate predictors of testing (particularly risk perceptions and worry); psychological and behavioral responses to testing; and potential impact on the health care system (e.g., when patients bring DTC genetic test results to their primary care provider). Interestingly, these themes did not dominate the narratives published in this issue. Rather, these narratives included consistent themes of expectations and looking for answers; complex emotions; areas of contradiction and conflict; and family impact. More narrative research on patient experiences with genetic testing may fill gaps in knowledge regarding how patients define the benefits of testing, changes in psychological and emotional reactions to test results over time, and the impact of testing on families.

Aaron Antonovsky, the medical sociologist, defined the sense of coherence as a pervasive sense that the events in one's life are comprehensible, manageable, and meaningful or worthwhile. Research on the sense of coherence indicates that it is positively correlated with resilience and adaptive coping with disabilities and illnesses. The collection of first-person narratives published in Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics on genetic testing can be understood as expressions of the human effort to restore or sustain a sense of coherence in the face of illness, uncertainty, or even curiosity about one's origins and future wellbeing. While the medical usefulness of the genetic testing that was discussed in the collection of narratives was often modest, the contribution of testing to the sense of coherence was often greater. Understanding the sense of coherence as a possible motive for genetic testing might reshape the way that we conceive of the benefits and the burdens of genetic testing and the disclosure of incidental findings.

Genetic testing seems to hold out hope for the cure of a number of debilitating conditions. At the same time, many people fear the information that genetic testing can make available. In this commentary, I argue that as of now, the nature of the information revealed in such tests should lead to cautious views about the value of genetic testing. Moreover, I suggest that our overall views about such testing should account for the fact that individuals place different sorts of value on the possession of their own genetic information. As a result, we should largely defer to personal preference in thinking about the propriety of genetic testing.

The general consensus among sport and exercise genetics researchers is that genetic tests have no role to play in talent identification or the individualised prescription of training to maximise performance. Despite the lack of evidence, recent years have witnessed the rise of an emerging market of direct-to-consumer marketing (DTC) tests that claim to be able to identify children's athletic talents. Targeted consumers include mainly coaches and parents. There is concern among the scientific community that the current level of knowledge is being misrepresented for commercial purposes. There remains a lack of universally accepted guidelines and legislation for DTC testing in relation to all forms of genetic testing and not just for talent identification. There is concern over the lack of clarity of information over which specific genes or variants are being tested and the almost universal lack of appropriate genetic counselling for the interpretation of the genetic data to consumers. Furthermore independent studies have identified issues relating to quality control by DTC laboratories with different results being reported from samples from the same individual. Consequently, in the current state of knowledge, no child or young athlete should be exposed to DTC genetic testing to define or alter training or for talent identification aimed at selecting gifted children or adolescents. Large scale collaborative projects, may help to develop a stronger scientific foundation on these issues in the future., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

The sequencing of the human genome has seen the emergence of the direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic-testing market, which allows individuals to obtain information about their genetic profile and its many health and lifestyle implications. Genetics play an important role in the development of many eye diseases, however, little information is available describing the influence of the DTC industry in ophthalmology. In this review, we examined DTC companies providing genetic test products for eye disease. Of all eye conditions, the majority of DTC companies provided susceptibility testing or risk assessment for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). For the 15 companies noted to offer products, we found considerable variation in the cost, scope and clarity of informational content of DTC genetic testing for ophthalmic conditions. The clinical utility of these tests remains in question, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology recommendations against routine testing for many conditions probably still apply., (© 2015 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists.)

Direct to consumer genetic testing offered via the Internet has been available for over a decade. Initially most tests of this type were offered without the input of the consumer's own health professional. Ethical and practical concerns have been a raised over the use of such tests: these include fulfilling the requirement for informed consent, utility of results for health care management and the potential burden placed upon health services by people who have taken tests.These tests now have an application in reproductive healthcare. The advent of non-invasive prenatal testing has facilitated the genetic testing of the fetus using only a maternal blood sample. However, companies offering such tests, for example for aneuploidy, appear to be doing so based on a referral from the mother's health professional. Preconception or prenatal carrier testing for a range of autosomal recessive conditions can be purchased without the input of a health professional who knows the prospective parents. However, unless the appropriate mutations for the specific population are included in the test, results may create false reassurance. Paternity testing without the consent of the putative father is also available via the Internet, as are tests to ascertain the sex of the fetus, which may be used to select children of a specific gender.Direct-to-consumer tests may support prospective parents to identify genetic risk to their future children, however, it is important that they are aware of the possible limitations, as well as advantages, of these tests. National regulation may not prove effective in ensuring the safety of all individuals involved, therefore international pressure to ensure companies conform to Codes of Practice may be needed, especially in relation to tests that could influence reproductive decisions. However, health professionals have a duty to ensure they are sufficiently knowledgeable to enable them to guide patients appropriately.