Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: How the Promise of a Personalised Approach is Being Squandered

  • Henk van den BeltEmail author
Part of the The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics book series (LEAF, volume 18)


Genomics holds out the promise of a more personalised approach to medicine and nutrition and claims to have overcome the dangers of ‘geneticisation’ by attending to the subtle interplay between genetic and environmental factors. Sometimes, this promise is also considered a reason to enhance consumer (or patient) autonomy by removing medical experts from decision-making processes. In this vein several firms have set up direct-to-consumer (DTC) nutrigenetic testing services after the example of Myriad Genetics with DNA testing for mutations in breast cancer genes.


Genetic Test Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Personalise Medicine European Patent Government Accountability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Akrich, M. (1992) The de-scription of technical objects. In: Bijker W.E. and J. Law (eds), Shaping Technology and Building Society: Studies in Socio-Technical Change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 205–224Google Scholar
  2. Barrett, S. (n.d), How the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 Weakened the FDA. [Accessed October 2010]
  3. Branca, M. (2003), Pharmacogenomix Files: The Importance of Informed Consent, Bio.IT WorldGoogle Scholar
  4. Citizens for Health (2003), History & Accomplishments.
  5. Collins, F.S. et al. (2003), A vision for the future of genomics research: A blueprint for the genomic era, Nature, 422, 835–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cornel, M.C. (2003a), Het zit in de genen?, lecture at a symposium of the Dutch Obesity Association, Lunteren, The Netherlands, 24 October 2003 slides available on website
  7. Cornel, M.C. (2003b), Community Genetics: Van vermenigvuldigen naar delen, Free University Amsterdam, 30 January 2003
  8. Crawford, C. (n.d.), Where is the Middle Ground on Dietary Supplements? [Accessed October 2010]
  9. Curie Institut (2001), Against Myriad Genetics’s monopoly on tests for predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer, the Institut Curie is initiating an opposition procedure with the European Patent office, Press Office. 12 September 2001
  10. Drahos, P. (1996), A Philosophy of Intellectual Property. Aldershot: AshgateGoogle Scholar
  11. Elliott, R. and T.J. Ong (2002), Science, medicine, and the future: Nutritional genomics, BMJ, 324, 1438–1442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Patent Office (2004), Myriad/breast cancer patent revoked after public hearing, EPO – Press releases. [Accessed July 2004]
  13. Fogg-Johnson, N. and A. Merolli (2000), Nutrigenomics: The next wave in nutrition research, Nutraceuticals World, 3, 86–95Google Scholar
  14. GeneWatch (2002a), Body shop’s genetic tests misleading and unethical, Press Release. 13 March 2002
  15. GeneWatch (2002b), Genewatch UK response to the Human Genetics Commission’s announcement of a consultation into genetic testing services, Press Release. 16 July 2002
  16. GeneWatch (2003a), GeneWatch UK response to the human genetics commission’s genes direct report, Press Release. April 9, 2003[cid]=396520&als[itemid]=564436
  17. GeneWatch (2003b), Human genetic tests: Good for your health? Leaflet June 2003 [Accessed September 2006]
  18. GeneWatch (2006a), Your diet tailored to your genes: preventing diseases or misleading marketing [Accessed December 2006]
  19. GeneWatch (2006b), Nutrigenomics: the future of nutrition?
  20. Gollust, S.E., S.C. Hull and B.S. Wilfond (2002), Limitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing, JAMA, 288, 1762–1767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodin, R.E. (1998), Institutions and their design. In: Goodin R.E. (ed), The Theory of Institutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–53Google Scholar
  22. Government Accountability Office (2006), Nutrigenetic Testing: Testimony before the Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate. Washington, DC, GAO-06-977T Government Accountability OfficeGoogle Scholar
  23. Grint K. and S. Woolgar (1997), The Machine at Work: Technology, Work and Organization. Oxford: Polity PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Haga, S.B., M.J. Khoury and W. Burke (2003), Genomic profiling to promote a healthy lifestyle: Not ready for prime time, Nature Genetics, 34, 347–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hull, S.C. and K. Prasad (2001), Reading between the lines: Direct-to-consumer advertising of genetic testing, Hastings Center Report, 31, 3, 33–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Human Genetics Commission (2003), Genes Direct: Ensuring the Effective Oversight of Genetic Tests Supplied Directly to the Public. [Accessed December 2003]
  27. Institute for the Future (2001), The Future of Nutrition: Consumers Engage with Science. From Nutrigenomic Science to Personalized Nutrition: The Market in 2010. Online:
  28. Javitt, G. and K. Hudson (2006), Federal neglect: Regulation of genetic testing, Issues in Science and Technology, 22, 59–66Google Scholar
  29. Kafatos, F.C. (2002), A revolutionary landscape: The restructuring of biology and its convergence with medicine, Journal of Molecular Biology, 319, 861–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaput, J. and R.L. Rodriguez (2004), Nutritional genomics: The next frontier in the postgenomic era, Physiological Genomics, 16, 168–177Google Scholar
  31. Kher, U. (2006), Can a DNA test tell you how to live your life? Time, August 1, 2006Google Scholar
  32. Ledley, F. (2001), The Future of Genomic Testing, talk given at a Forum of Pharmaceutical Industry – Apifarma, Portugal. 15–16 November 2001
  33. Ledley, F.D. (2002), A consumer charter for genomic services, Nature Biotechnology, 20, 767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ledley, F.D. (2003), Public comment. Scholar
  35. Leighton, P. (2000), Up-and-coming markets: Opportunities and issues from a Darwinian perspective, Nutraceutical World. October 2000
  36. Mitka, M. (1998), FDA Never Promised an Herb Garden – But Sellers and Buyers Eager to See One Grow, JAMA, 280, 1554–1556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Myriad Genetics (2002), Myriad genetics launches direct to consumer advertising for breast cancer test, News Release. 12-09-2002, on website
  38. Nature Genetics (2002), Editorial: What’s brewing in genetic testing, Nature Genetics, 32, 553–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nestle, M. (2002), Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. Berkeley, CA: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
  40. Oberender, P. and J. Fleischmann (2003), Gentests aus gesundheitsökonomischer Sicht, Diskussionspapier 03–03, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Diskussionspapiere, Universität Bayreuth, April 2003Google Scholar
  41. One Person Genetics Inc (2003), About One Person Genetics. [Accessed June 2003]
  42. Paradise, J. (2004), European opposition to exclusive control over predictive breast cancer testing and the inherent implications for U.S. patent law and public policy: A case study of myriad genetics BRCA patent controversy, Food and Drug Law Journal, 59, 133–154Google Scholar
  43. Parthasarathy, S. (2005), Architectures of genetic medicine: Comparing genetic testing for breast cancer in the USA and the UK, Social Studies of Science, 35, 1, 5–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Parthasarathy, S. (2006), Reconceptualizing technology transfer: the challenge of shaping an international system of genetic testing for breast cancer. In: Guston D.H. and D. Sarewitz (eds), Shaping Science and Technology Policy: The Next Generation of Research. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 333–357Google Scholar
  45. Pearson, H. (2002), At-home DNA tests are here, The Wall Street Journal-Europe, 25 June 2002Google Scholar
  46. Roberts, G. and K. Grimaldi. (2003), Sciona and genetic testing, Nature Genetics, 33, 121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Russo, G. (2006), Home health tests are “genetic horoscopes”, Nature, 442, 497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. SACGT (Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing) (2000), Enhancing the Oversight of Genetic Tests: Recommendations of the SACGT. July 2000, online Scholar
  49. Sciona (2003), Sciona Gene Screen Profiles – The Science Explained. [Accessed June 2003]
  50. Sciona (2006a), Ethical leadership. [Accessed September 2006]
  51. Sciona (2006b), Sciona addresses statements contained within the GAO report released Thursday, July 27, 2006’, July 31, 2006.
  52. van Os, Th.A.M. et al. (2002), Klinische genetica (25): erfelijke vormen van mamma- en ovariumcarcinoom’, Patient Care, 29, 3, 13–20Google Scholar
  53. Vines, G. (2002), I see a long life and a healthy one…, New Scientist, 23 November 2002, 176, 2370, 42–45Google Scholar
  54. Wallace, H.M. (2005), Ethics watch: Who regulates genetic tests?, Nature Reviews Genetics, 6, 517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Williams-Jones, B. (2002), Genetic Testing for Sale: Implications of Commercial BRCA Testing in Canada, Thesis, University of British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  56. Williams-Jones, B. (2003), Where there’s a web, there’s a way: Commercial genetic testing and the internet, Community Genetics, 6, 46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wolinsky, H. (2005), Do-it-yourself diagnosis, EMBO Reports, 6, 805–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Woolgar, S. (1991), Configuring the user. The case of usability trials. In: Law J. (ed), A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  59. Zitner, A. (2002), Firms Sell Gene tests Directly to Public, Los Angeles Times, August 11, 2002Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations