» Articles » PMID: 29497607

Regulation of Internet-based Genetic Testing: Challenges for Australia and Other Jurisdictions

Overview
Specialty Public Health
Date 2018 Mar 3
PMID 29497607
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The Internet currently enables unprecedented ease of access for direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing, with saliva collection kits posted directly to consumer homes from anywhere in the world. This poses new challenges for local jurisdictions in regulating genetic testing, traditionally a tightly-regulated industry. Some Internet-based genetic tests have the capacity to cause significant confusion or harm to consumers who are unaware of the risks or potential variability in quality. The emergence of some online products of questionable content, unsupported by adequate scientific evidence, is a cause for concern. Proliferation of such products in the absence of regulation has the potential to damage public trust in accredited and established clinical genetic testing during a critical period of evidence generation for genomics. Here, we explore the challenges arising from the emergence of Internet-based DTC genetic testing. In particular, there are challenges in regulating unaccredited or potentially harmful Internet-based DTC genetic testing products. In Australia, challenges exist for the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which oversees regulation of the genetic testing sector. Concerns and challenges faced in Australia are likely to reflect those of other comparable non-US jurisdictions. Here, we summarize current Australian regulation, highlight concerns, and offer recommendations on how Australia and other comparable jurisdictions might be more proactive in addressing this emerging public health issue.

Citing Articles

Internet-Based Abnormal Chromosomal Diagnosis During Pregnancy Using a Noninvasive Innovative Approach to Detecting Chromosomal Abnormalities in the Fetus: Scoping Review.

Oyovwi M, Ohwin E, Rotu R, Olowe T JMIR Bioinform Biotechnol. 2024; 5:e58439.

PMID: 39412876 PMC: 11525087. DOI: 10.2196/58439.


Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing in South Africa: Stumbling Over the First Legal Hurdle?.

Gooden A, Thaldar D Potchefstroom Electron Law J. 2023; 25.

PMID: 37383487 PMC: 10306243. DOI: 10.17159/1727-3781/2022/v25i0a11764.


How does the genomic naive public perceive whole genomic testing for health purposes? A scoping review.

Sherburn I, Finlay K, Best S Eur J Hum Genet. 2022; 31(1):35-47.

PMID: 36257982 PMC: 9822972. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-022-01208-5.


Impute.me: An Open-Source, Non-profit Tool for Using Data From Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing to Calculate and Interpret Polygenic Risk Scores.

Folkersen L, Pain O, Ingason A, Werge T, Lewis C, Austin J Front Genet. 2020; 11:578.

PMID: 32714365 PMC: 7340159. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2020.00578.


Genomic Testing for Human Health and Disease Across the Life Cycle: Applications and Ethical, Legal, and Social Challenges.

Bilkey G, Burns B, Coles E, Bowman F, Beilby J, Pachter N Front Public Health. 2019; 7:40.

PMID: 30915323 PMC: 6421958. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00040.


References
1.
Skirton H, Goldsmith L, Jackson L, OConnor A . Direct to consumer genetic testing: a systematic review of position statements, policies and recommendations. Clin Genet. 2012; 82(3):210-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2012.01863.x. View

2.
Montoya I, Jano E . Online pharmacies: safety and regulatory considerations. Int J Health Serv. 2007; 37(2):279-89. DOI: 10.2190/1243-P8Q8-6827-H7TQ. View

3.
Moray N, Pink K, Borry P, Larmuseau M . Paternity testing under the cloak of recreational genetics. Eur J Hum Genet. 2017; 25(6):768-770. PMC: 5477360. DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2017.31. View

4.
Critchley C, Nicol D, Otlowski M, Chalmers D . Public reaction to direct-to-consumer online genetic tests: Comparing attitudes, trust and intentions across commercial and conventional providers. Public Underst Sci. 2014; 24(6):731-50. DOI: 10.1177/0963662513519937. View

5.
Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J . Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. 2015; 17(5):405-24. PMC: 4544753. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2015.30. View