Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Obesity Genes, Personalized Medicine, and Public Health Policy

  • Health Services and Programs (SFL Kirk, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Obesity Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The personalized medicine movement—also known as precision medicine and personalized genomics—has embraced the belief that genetic risk information can be used to motivate healthier choices and meaningful behaviour change. While a genuinely exciting area of research, there are numerous policy issues associated with a focus on the use of genetic risk information to personalize approaches to obesity prevention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of Importance

  1. Obama BH. Remarks by the President in State of the Union address. January 20, 2015. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/20/remarks-president-state-union-address-january-20-2015.

  2. National Institutes of Health. Genetics home reference. NIH. 2014. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/ glossary1⁄4personalizedmedicine.

  3. Japsen B. How Republicans prescribe to Obama's precision medicine spending. Forbes. Feb. 1, 2015. http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2015/02/01/how-the-gop-prescribes-to-obamas-precision-medicine-plan/.

  4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research(News Release). Harper government invests in personalized medicine. CIHR. June 2012. http:// www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/44825.html.

  5. Lili LN, Matyunina LN, Walker LD, et al. Evidence for the importance of personalized molecular profiling in pancreatic cancer. Pancreas. 2014;43(2):198.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tardif J-C, Rheaume E, Lemieux Perreault L-P, et al. Pharmacogenomic determinants of the cardiovascular effects of dalcetrapib. Circ Cardiovasc Genet. 2015; CIRCGENETICS-114.

  7. Lautenbach DM, Christensen KD, Sparks JA, et al. Communicating genetic risk information for common disorders in the era of genomic medicine. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2012;14:491–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Collins F. The language of life: DNA and the revolution in personalized medicine. New York: Harper Perennial; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dr. Oz. Exploring the perfect diet for your gene. Aug. 2, 2010. http://www.doctoroz.com/article/exploring-perfect-diet-your-genes.

  10. Hood L, Lovejoy JC, Price ND. Integrating big data and actionable health coaching to optimize wellness. BMC Med. 2015;13:4.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lifegenetics. DNA test Slim for effective weight loss. Lifegenetics. http://lifegenetics.net/shop/dna-test-slim/ (accessed February 9, 2015).

  12. GenoVive. The science behind Genovive meals. Genovive. http://genoviveusa.com/index.php/diet/science-behind-genovive-meals (accessed February 9, 2015).

  13. https://slimgeneration.com/tulsa-weight-loss-dna/ (accessed February 9, 2015).

  14. Begum S. “Salford firm launches DNA test to help kids battling obesity. Manchester Evening News. January 8, 2014. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/salford-firm-bioclinics-dna-test-6477877.

  15. Caulfield T. Blinded by science. The Walrus. 2011.

  16. Loos RJ. Genetic determinants of common obesity and their value in prediction. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;26:211–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Locke AE, Kahali B, Berndt SI, et al. Genetic studies of body mass index yield new insights for obesity biology. Nature. 2015;518:197–206.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Covolo L, Rubinelli S, Orizio G, et al. Misuse (and abuse?) of the concept of empowerment. The case of online offer of predictive direct-to-consumer genetic tests. J Public Health Res. 2012;1:7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Patel CJ, Sivadas A, Tabassum R, et al. Whole genome sequencing in support of wellness and health maintenance. Genome Med. 2013;5:58.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Meek T. DNA expert: use genes to assess disease risk. PMLive. Feb. 13, 2015. http://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/dna_expert_use_genes_to_assess_disease_risk_648876.

  21. Flores M, Glusman G, Brogaard K, et al. P4 medicine: how systems medicine will transform the healthcare sector and society. Pers Med. 2013;10:565–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Caulfield T, Evans J, McGuire A, et al. Reflections on the cost of “low-cost” whole genome sequencing: framing the health policy debate. PLoS Biol. 2013;11(11):e1001699.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Caulfield T. The obesity gene and the (misplaced) search for a personalized approach to our weight gain problems. Wake Forest J Law Policy. 2015 (in press).

  24. Marteau TM, French DP, Griffin SJ, et al. Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing behaviours. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;10:CD007275.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Smerecnik C, Grispen JE, Quaak M. Effectiveness of testing for genetic susceptibility to smoking-related diseases on smoking cessation outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Control. 2012;21:347–54.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Grant RW, O'Brien KE, Waxler JL, et al. Personalized genetic risk counseling to motivate diabetes prevention: a randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(1):13–9. Using genetic risk information to counsel about diabetes prevention did not alter patient motivation or adherence to prevention strategies. This study demonstrates the limits of the genetically informed and personalized approach to the promotion of behaviour change.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Weinberg DS, Myers RE, Keenan E, et al. Genetic and environmental risk assessment and colorectal cancer screening in an average-risk population: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(8):537–45. Study found that the provision of genetic risk information did not increase the uptake of screening. This stands as yet another example of how hard it is to alter health behaviours.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Egglestone C, Morris A, O'Brien A. Effect of direct-to-consumer genetic tests on health behaviour and anxiety: a survey of consumers and potential consumers. J Genet Couns. 2013;22:565–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Almeling R, Gadarian SK. Reacting to genetic risk: an experimental survey of life between health and disease. J Health Soc Behav. 2014;55(4):482–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Webster TH, Beal SJ, Brothers KB. Motivation in the age of genomics: why genetic findings of disease susceptibility might not motivate behavior change. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2013;9:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Patel MS, Asch DA, Volpp KG. Wearable devices as facilitators, not drivers, of health behavior change. JAMA. 2015;313(5):459–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Laing BY, Mangione CM, Tseng CH, et al. Effectiveness of a smartphone application for weight loss compared with usual care in overweight primary care patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(10_Supplement):S5–12.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ledger D, McCaffrey D. Inside wearables: how the science of human behavior change offers the secret to long-term engagement. Endeavour Partners. January 2014. http://endeavourpartners.net/assets/Wearables-and-the-Science-of-Human-Behavior-Change-EP4.pdf.

  34. Pagoto S et al. Evidence-based strategies in weight-loss mobile apps. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45(5):576–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kyle TK, Thomas DM, Tsai AG. Obesity is increasingly viewed as a community problem by both the public and healthcare professionals” ConscienHealth. (2014) http://conscienhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Obesity-Is-Increasingly-Viewed-as-a-Community-Problem.Handout.Final_.2014.10.23.pdf.

  36. Malik VS, Willett WC, Hu FB. Global obesity: trends, risk factors and policy implications. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2013;9:13–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gortmaker SL, Swinburn BA, Levy D, et al. Changing the future of obesity: science, policy, and action. Lancet. 2011;378:838–47.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Morain S, Mello MM. Survey finds public support for legal interventions directed at health behavior to fight noncommunicable disease. Health Aff. 2013;32(3):486–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Huang TT, Cawley JH, Ashe M, et al. Mobilisation of public support for policy actions to prevent obesity. Lancet. 2015.

  40. Bos C, Van der Lans IA, Van R, et al. Understanding consumer acceptance of intervention strategies for healthy food choices: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1073.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gollust SE, Niederdeppe J, Barry CL. Framing the consequences of childhood obesity to increase public support for obesity prevention policy. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(11):e96–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Brochu PM, Pearl RL, Puhl RM, et al. Do media portrayals of obesity influence support for weight-related medical policy? Health Psychol. 2014;33(2):197–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Barry CL, Brescoll VL, Gollust SE. Framing childhood obesity: how individualizing the problem affects public support for prevention. Polit Psychol. 2013;34(3):327–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pearl RL, Lebowitz MS. Beyond personal responsibility: effects of causal attributions for overweight and obesity on weight-related beliefs, stigma, and policy support. Psychol Health. 2014;29(10):1176–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Barry CL, Brescoll VL, Brownell KD, et al. Obesity metaphors: how beliefs about the causes of obesity affect support for public policy. Milbank Q. 2009;87(1):7–47.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Beeken RJ, Wardle J. Public beliefs about the causes of obesity and attitudes towards policy initiatives in Great Britain. Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(12):2132–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Árnason V. The personal is political: ethics and personalized medicine. Ethical Perspect. 2012;19(1):103–22.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Juengst ET, Flatt MA, Settersten RA. Personalized genomic medicine and the rhetoric of empowerment. Hastings Cent Rep. 2012;42:34–40.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lund TB, Nielsen ME, Sandøe P. In a class of their own: the Danish public considers obesity less deserving of treatment compared with smoking-related diseases. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2014. doi:10.1038/ejcn.2014.185. Study found that support for COPD and lung cancer treatment is significantly higher than for obesity treatment, highlighting how obesity is viewed differently than other “lifestyle” conditions.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Caulfield T, Bubela T, Murdoch CJ. Myriad and the mass media: the covering of a gene patent controversy. Genet Med. 2008;9:850–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Longstaff H, Secko D. Media influence on biobank deliberations. J Health Mass Commun. 2010;2(1-4):73–95.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Nelkin D. Selling science: how the press covers science and technology. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Friedman SM, Dunwoody S, Rogers CL. Communicating uncertainty: media coverage of new and controversial science. Mahway: Larence Erlbaum Associates; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Nisbet M, Brossard D, Kroepsch A. Framing science: the stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard Int J Press/Polit. 2003;8(2):36–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kitzinger J, Williams C. Forecasting science futures: legitimizing hope and calming fears in the embryo stem cell debate. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:731–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Calitz C, Pollack KM, Millard C, et al. National Institutes of Health funding for behavioural interventions to prevent chronic disease. Am J Prev Med. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.10.015.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Kalina Kamenova, Maeghan Toews, Spencer McMullin and Robyn Hyde-Lay for their insight and assistance and research projects PRISM (CIHR), AllerGen (NCE) and PACEOMICS (Genome Alberta) for funding support.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Timothy Caulfield declares he has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy Caulfield.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Health Services and Programs

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Caulfield, T. Obesity Genes, Personalized Medicine, and Public Health Policy. Curr Obes Rep 4, 319–323 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-015-0163-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-015-0163-x

Keywords

Navigation