Genetic Testing Can Save Lives…Why Stop It?
As new discoveries in genetics create more mysteries about
our DNA, they also create fresh arguments between writers in the medical field.
Authors Charlie Gillis and Ronald Bailey each have their own opinions on the
topic of genetic testing. Gillis in his piece “Risky Business”—published on
Maclean’s.ca—did not feel comfortable with the idea of genetic testing. While,
Bailey supported the testing of human genetics in his article “Leave 23andMe
alone”, which was published on Reason.com. Although Gillis provides ample
evidence that genetic testing does have its flaws, Bailey’s research on the
positive effects of genetic testing convinces me that testing people’s genetics
is a worthwhile venture that can help people prevent diseases or better their
lives to lessen the impact of the disease.
Decades
ago, it seemed like nothing more than an abstract idea to know what type of DNA
you have in your body. Today, science and technology have developed to an
extent where that valuable information can be found out within weeks at an
affordable cost. In his article “Risky Business”, Gillis writes about the
company 23andMe, which provides average people with affordable genetic testing.
While this company has had almost “500,000” (Bailey 3) customers, the “U.S.
Food and Drug Administration sent a letter to 23andMe asking it to stop
providing health results to its American members” (Gillis 2) because of the
negative effects the results have on the citizens. These negative side effects
include depression and anxiety that result from tests that show mutations in
genes. Although the FDA stopped the company in America, Gillis reminds us that
Canada does not have any regulations on genetic testing which resulted in an
increase of 23andMe advertisements in their country. Gillis then emphasizes
that genetic test results in Canada “can be used by insurers and employers”
(2). When a citizen in Canada takes a genetic test, their future employers have
the right to view the results. Abnormal test results could cause people to see
an increase in difficulties to obtain a job or insurance because those
companies will discriminate against people with a higher number of mutated
genes. Gillis expresses that upsetting results can cause more harm than a lack
of job or insurance; these irregular results could cause depression or anxiety.
Fear of what the results may say, these unusual findings are also a reason
people are not getting the testing done. Whether the genes are found to be
normal or abnormal, genetic testing only informs people of their chances for
different diseases, and the information given never absolutely guarantees that
the conditions they are more likely to develop will actually develop.
 |
| 23andMe Logo |
Ronald
Bailey’s view of genetic testing in his article “Leave 23andMe alone” contradicts
Gillis’s opinion on the matter. Bailey begins by enlightening his readers about
this horrible thing the FDA has done to the company 23andMe. He reports that
the FDA shut down 23andMe’s genetic testing center in the United States to stop
it from sending genetic reports to U.S. citizens. In a letter to 23andMe, the
FDA claimed that they “[worry] that
purchasers of 23andMe's personal genome services will do something dangerously
stupid in reaction to what they learn” (Bailey 1). They fear that if citizens
begin to receive negative results about their DNA, they will become dangerous,
cease rational thinking, or develop depression, among other things. However, Bailey
brings to light an example of a woman who received a positive result for a
breast cancer causing gene. Instead of immediately planning a double
mastectomy, she planned a visit with her doctor to plan a more thorough genetic
test. The new test ended up supporting 23andMe’s results. Bailey supports his
view by explaining a recent study 23andMe completed about effects of results
that were positive for BRCA, a gene that causes cancer. One note from the study
was that “‘all but one of the 32 mutation-positive participants appreciated
learning their BRCA mutation status’” (Bailey 2). These results contradict the FDA’s reasoning
that people are not ready to understand the mutations that are in their genes. Also,
almost “500,000 people have purchased 23andMe’s genotype screening tests”
(Bailey 3) which shows that many citizens are curious to learn about their DNA.
As
a result of the FDA’s actions to halt 23andMe’s service to Americans, the once
quick and affordable genetic results are no longer available to citizens. Their
actions will increase people’s waiting time, which restricts valuable time people
could spend taking preventative actions.
In
the previous articles about genetic testing, Gillis argues the dangers that
genetic testing has on people. On the other hand, Bailey contends that genetic
testing is a great advance in science that should be available to the public.
Gillis repeatedly brings up the argument that society is not capable of hearing
about mutations in their genes. He argues that bad results will cause decline
into a pit of despair. Yet, in writing about genetic testing, Bailey has
nothing but good things to say about the test. Bailey’s claim that awareness of
genetic mutations does more good than harm contradicts Gillis’s viewpoint that
the testing only causes harm. Bailey describes multiple events where the early
warnings from genetic testing have saved lives by people taking early
preventative action towards diseases they could have developed.
Taking
both authors’ arguments into account, I wholeheartedly endorse Bailey’s claim
that genetic testing is a positive scientific advancement that should be
available for society to use at will. People should have the choice to make
their own decisions in learning about their genes, and what possible mutations
they carry. When a person discovers that they have a higher chance to develop a
diseases or disorder, they can take preventative measures, such as living a
healthier lifestyle or changing their medications. Bailey wrote about a recent study
that reported that genetic test results revealing mutation were not linked to
bad results. He posed that people were not “inclined to overestimate the
contributions of genetics to common health problems or underestimate behavioral
risk factors” (Bailey 3).These tests could also help people learn about
mutations that have already started to affect their bodily functions. Genetic
testing is a fascinating way for people to learn more about their body and can
help them to develop different routine habits that will better their lifestyle.
In addition to the mutations the tests can find, genetic testing is a great way
for people to learn more about the field of genetics. When I was younger and
heard about the company 23andMe, it sparked interest in me about finding out
what exactly the field of genetics is all about. Now five years later, I am
currently pursuing a biochemistry major to become a genetic researcher. The
FDA’s move to shut down 23andMe’s genetic testing service for American citizens
may keep younger people from hearing about the field of genetics. When fewer
people know about the field, fewer people will pursue degrees to further the
scientific discoveries about our human genes, and the lack of geneticists could
slow down scientists' efforts to cure common genetic disorders.
At
this point many receivers of genetic tests revealing mutated genes would object
my opinion that genetic testing should be available to the public. These
naysayers claim that the public is not emotionally prepared to know their risks
for future diseases. However, anyone over 18 can order these 23andMe genotype
testing kits. That is the same age people become a legal adult, are allowed to
vote, buy tobacco, and purchase lottery tickets. The company's Terms of Service
states that in order to “provide your own Genetic Information, you must be
eighteen (18) years of age or older” (23andMe). As an adult, they should
understand the risks of finding out about their genetic information, and know
that not all results will be good news. These people with mutation positive
tests may claim that those terrifying results only caused anxiety or depression.
The early signs of a genetic mutation could, however, eventually save the
person from a disease or a premature death. A result indicating a genetic
probability for a disease like breast cancer may scare a person, but it scares
them into seeking a doctor to help take precautionary measures to decrease
their chances of developing breast cancer. Gillis quotes Emily Conley, a
director at 23andMe, about the true meaning of the company; she explains
“‘[genetic testing] is an individual’s right to obtain information about
himself so he can make healthy adjustments to his lifestyle’” (5).
 |
| DNA Strands |
Ultimately,
what is at stake here is the right to learn about their genes whenever and
however they want. When the FDA shut down 23andMe’s availability to Americans,
they took away Americans' rights to discover what type of genes they have at an
affordable price. One important opportunity given by 23andMe was the chance for
early detection of genetic mutations. These early warning signs have given
people the chance to change their lifestyles or have disease preventative
surgeries. Numerous people have taken the opportunity given by 23andMe’s
services to find out information about their genes and what is troublesome
about them. As a result of the FDA’s actions, the once quick and affordable
process of requiring genetic results are no longer available to citizens. Their
actions will increase people’s waiting time, which leaves less time for
preventative actions.
All
things considered, both authors make a good argument on either side of the
genetic testing debate. Gillis creates a strong argument against the use of
genetic testing to discover a person's faults in their genetic makeup, while
Bailey writes an opinion-changing piece about the positive effects genetic
testing can have on people’s lives. What Gillis fails to point out is that only
adults can use companies—such as 23andMe—to order genetic information, and that
not all test results cause negative effects on people. Without the continuation
of genetic testing, society may be missing out on cures for common genetic
disorders that could be discovered from multiple genetic results. In the end,
no one truly knows what diseases they will get, but the genetic testing is a
good warning sign that has the power to save lives. This type of live-saving
opportunity should not be taken away from the public.
Works
Cited
Bailey, Ronald. "Leave 23andMe Alone: The FDA
Should Stop Obstructing Consumer-driven Genetic Testing." Reason. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,
Mar. 2014. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.
Gillis, Charlie. "Risky Business." Macleans.ca. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context, 23 Mar. 2015. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.
"Terms of
Service." 23andme.com. 23andMe, Inc., 2015. Web. 4 Oct. 2015.
