Predicting responses to genetic testing

In a letter published in Nature last week, Kenneth Kosik and Francisco Lopera argue, based on their experiences with a large Colombian family with high rates of Alzheimer's disease, that responses to genetic risk information can vary hugely between individuals.

Kosik and Lopera criticise a recent Nature news article that questioned whether genetic test results actually have any lasting negative impact on recipients, noting that one of the members of the Alzheimer's family they study said he would "shoot himself in the head" if he discovered he carried the same mutation that had afflicted his mother with early dementia.

Arguing with anecdotes is a fun game; perhaps next week I can get a letter in Nature questioning the tobacco-lung cancer connection using the longevity of my chain-smoking great-grandfather as evidence. However, what really interested me was this paragraph, which lovingly describes the dawning of a new era of techno-paternalism:

Seeking predictive genetic testing can be a risky behaviour, and an individual's likely response to genetic risk is hard to foretell. Functional magnetic resonance imaging activity patterns may be able to define people who are more comfortable with risk, and genetic polymorphisms seem to contribute to risk-taking behaviour. Defining the scientific basis for how individuals handle volatile genetic information may help guide our decisions about the best setting for delivering predictive-testing news.

So if a person tests positive for a genetic variant that indicates they'll respond badly to genetic testing results, should you tell them?


Subscribe to Genetic Future.