“I would rather have it done by a doctor”—laypeople’s perceptions of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) and its ethical implications
- 67 Downloads
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.
KeywordsDirect-to-consumer genetic testing Trust Laypeople Attitudes Responsibility Focus group discussion
Special acknowledgements need to be given to Mark Schweda, Alexander Urban and Julia Perry who designed the data collection methodology together with the authors and to Alexander Urban and Julia Perry for assisting with data collection.
MS, SW, and SS: Designed the focus group guidelines, monitored data collection, participated in the analysis process of group consensus coding of the data and revised the paper. Additionally, MS: Coded and analyzed the data and drafted the paper, functioning as guarantor. SW: Supported analyzing the data and drafting the paper. SS: Initiated the project and drafted the paper.
This research was funded by the Swedish Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, 2015–2019 (Grant No. 1351730).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Ethics approval obtained from the University of Göttingen Human Research Review Committee (Ref. Nr. 16/10/14).
- 23andMe. 2017a. https://www.23andme.com/. Accessed 19 Oct 2017.
- 23andMe. 2017b. https://mediacenter.23andme.com/about-us/. Accessed 11 July 2017.
- Berg, Bruce L. 2007. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- Gollust, Sarah E., Erynn S. Gordon, C. Zayac, Georgia Griffin, M. F. Christman, R. E. Pyeritz, Lisa Wawak, and Barbara A. Bernhardt. 2012. Motivations and perceptions of early adopters of personalized genomics: Perspectives from research participants. Public Health Genomics 15 (1): 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1159/000327296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gordon, Erynn S., Georgia Griffin, Lisa Wawak, Hauchie Pang, E. Sarah, Gollust, and Barbara A. Bernhardt. 2012. It’s not like judgment day”: Public understanding of and reactions to personalized genomic risk information. Journal of Genetic Counseling 21 (3): 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-011-9476-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hogarth, Stuart, Gail Javitt, and David Melzer. 2008. The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annual Review of Human Genomics and Human Genetics 9: 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genom.9.081307.164319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Karsch, Fabian. 2015. Medizin zwischen Markt und Moral. Zur Kommerzialisierung ärztlicher Handlungsfelder. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
- Krippendorf, Klaus. 2013. Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
- Metschke, Rainer, and Rita Wellbrock. 2002. Datenschutz in Wissenschaft und Forschung. Materialien zum Datenschutz 28.Google Scholar
- O’Doherty, Kieran C., Emily Christofides, Jeffery Yen, Heidi Beate Bentzen, Wylie Burke, Nina Hallowell, Barbara A. Koenig, and Donald J. Willison. 2016. If you build it, they will come: Unintended future uses of organised health data collections. BMC Medical Ethics 17 (1): 54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0137-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Obar, Jonathan A., and Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch. 2016. The biggest lie on the internet: Ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. Paper presented at the TPRC 44: The 44th research conference on communication, information and internet policy 2016. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2757465.
- Oliveri, Serana, Marianna Masiero, Paola Arnaboldi, Ilaria Cutica, Chiara Fioretti, and Gabriella Pravettoni. 2016. Health orientation, knowledge, and attitudes toward genetic testing and personalized genomic services: Preliminary data from an Italian sample. BioMed Research International 2016: 6824581. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6824581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Plöthner, Marika, Mike Klora, Daniel Rudolph, and Johann-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg. 2017. Health-related genetic direct-to-consumer tests in the German setting: The available offer and the potential implications for a solidarily financed health-care system. Public Health Genomics. https://doi.org/10.1159/000477559.Google Scholar
- Salm, Melissa, Kristopher Abbate, Paul Appelbaum, Ruth Ottman, Wendy Chung, Karen Marder, Cheng-Shiun Leu, Roy Alcalay, Jill Goldmann, Alexander Malik Curtis, Christopher Leech, Katherine Johansen Taber, and Robert Klitzmann. 2014. Use of genetic tests among neurologists and psychiatrists: Knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and needs for training. Journal of Genetic Counseling 23 (2): 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-013-9624-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sherman, Kerry, Laura-Kate Shaw, Katrina Champion, Fernanda Caldeira, and Margaret McCaskill. 2015. The effect of disease risk probability and disease type on interest in clinic-based versus direct-to-consumer genetic testing services. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 38 (5): 706–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sterckx, Sigrid., Julian Cockbain, Heidi Carmen Howard, Isabelle Huys, and Pascal Borry. 2013. “Trust is not something you can reclaim easily”: Patenting in the field of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Genetics in Medicine 15 (5): 382–387. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2012.143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Su, Pascal. 2013. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: A comprehensive view. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 86 (3): 359–365.Google Scholar