By raising hell about newborn blood-spot screening, Twila Brase could jeopardize public-health programmes and derail research. The problem is, she has a point.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Additional information
See Editorial p.265
Mary Carmichael is a freelance writer in Boston, Massachusetts.
Related links
Related links
Related links in Nature Research
Related external links
Citizens' Council for Health Freedom
Minnesota Department of Public Health information on newborn screening
US Department of Health and Human Services statement on newborn screening (PDF)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carmichael, M. Newborn screening: A spot of trouble. Nature 475, 156–158 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/475156a
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/475156a
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Eliciting parental support for the use of newborn blood spots for pediatric research
BMC Medical Research Methodology (2016)
-
Whole-genome sequencing in newborn screening? A statement on the continued importance of targeted approaches in newborn screening programmes
European Journal of Human Genetics (2015)
-
Public concerns regarding the storage and secondary uses of residual newborn bloodspots: an analysis of print media, legal cases, and public engagement activities
Journal of Community Genetics (2015)
-
Applying Public Health Screening Criteria: How Does Universal Newborn Screening Compare to Universal Tumor Screening for Lynch Syndrome in Adults with Colorectal Cancer?
Journal of Genetic Counseling (2015)
-
‘Cool! and creepy’: engaging with college student stakeholders in Michigan’s biobank
Journal of Community Genetics (2014)