Skip to main content

Get ready for the risks of genetic testing

By Arthur Caplan, Special to CNN
updated 1:08 PM EDT, Tue March 12, 2013
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Arthur Caplan: Some commercial genetic testing promise a kind of future-telling
  • Caplan: What if the results show you have a huge risk of a fatal disease? Would you freak out?
  • He says finding out about health risks hidden in your genes should involve counsel
  • Caplan: Even if you can deal with bad news, genetic info need to be understood well

Editor's note: Arthur Caplan is the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty professor and director of the Division of Bioethics at New York University Langone Medical Center.

(CNN) -- Would you want to know your future if science could tell it to you?

Some forms of commercial genetic testing promise something like this kind of future-telling. But you need to think long and hard about peeking into your own genes to see what they hold in store for your health. It may not be so easy to cope with the bad news that could result. And it is likely that other people could know your genetic future even if you do not consent to tell them.

Let's say you send your spit (yes, spit is the source of DNA for this kind of testing) off to one of the many companies advertising direct-to-consumer genetic testing and the results showed you had a huge risk of a fatal disease.

Would that freak you out? Would you want to get this news in a letter sent by overnight mail? Wouldn't you prefer to have someone available to counsel you about what negative findings mean and what to do about them?

Privacy vs. prosecution: DNA testing gets high court review

Arthur Caplan
Arthur Caplan

There are people who say they don't need help dealing with whatever the genetic tests reveal. And a new study sponsored by one of the genetic testing companies, 23andMe, backs them up -- sort of. The study suggests most people can get bad news about their risk of getting or transmitting breast cancer to a new generation without going all to pieces emotionally.

I think the study is weak. It involved only a few hundred people who already likely knew they were in a high risk group for breast cancer. It is likely that such people who seek testing will take bad news with greater calm than would you or I if we had no expectations.

Become a fan of CNNOpinion
Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.



At most, the study suggests that people in high risk groups who know they are likely to get a genetic disease can handle negative health information. But it doesn't tell us much about how the average person will cope in such a situation.

Remember that genetic testing is still in its infancy.

While some commercial companies promise to tell you what is the optimal diet for you to eat or whether your kid will be a star athlete, the reality is that genetic testing is nowhere near capable of doing any such thing. The accuracy of testing depends on the disease.

Some genes when present mean 100% certainty that you will get a disease, but some raise your risk only 5%. And test predictions are based on studies of small, mainly white, American populations. Testing quality depends on the lab and that is all over the place right now. So much genetic testing is not exceedingly reliable and not always trustworthy in terms of what it means for you.

Nonetheless, finding out about health risks hidden in your genes still seems to me the kind of news that at least requires you make available a trained genetic counselor to help you deal with it.

Remember genetic testing is about risk and probabilities -- and the future is shaped by your genes and your lifestyle -- facts that counselors can help make clear. It is cheaper for companies not to have to offer counseling. But cheaper is not necessarily better if the test comes up snake eyes for high risk for Alzheimer's, Huntington's, diabetes, cancer, depression or blindness for you or your children.

Even if you think you have what it takes to absorb unexpectedly distressing results about your health without the help of a counselor or doctor, there is another reason to be wary of sending off your spit to a company touting affordable genetic testing on the Internet.

In January, a team of American and Israeli scientists showed they could reconstruct the identity of people from supposedly anonymous genetic samples using readily available databases on the Internet. Genetic hackers who get a sample of your DNA could use public databases to figure out whose genetic sample they have and then they would know all about the future written in your genes too.

Maybe people are more resilient than worrywarts like me when it comes to facing potentially upsetting revelation about their genes. Still, it does not take a lot of people actually breaking down and crying to think that competent personal counseling always ought to be an option before finding out about your genetic destiny. And given the problems inherent in guaranteeing personal privacy when it comes to cracking your genetic code, you need to be very careful where and to whom you send your DNA.

Genetic testing is a very useful new tool for helping us stay healthy. But doctors, counselors and even legislators need to get involved so that genetic knowledge can be properly understood and kept private.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Arthur Caplan.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 11:36 AM EDT, Mon May 20, 2013
Julian Zelizer says that Obama, like many before him, chose to work within the system to get things done rather than lead transformative change.
updated 11:22 AM EDT, Mon May 20, 2013
Meg Urry says loss of the failing, planet-finding Kepler satellite would be huge for NASA--but one way or another, it's a matter of time before we find signs of life on other worlds
updated 7:32 AM EDT, Mon May 20, 2013
Elizabeth Dunn and Michael Norton write that people pass up opportunities to spend their money to avoid disagreeable tasks
updated 4:22 PM EDT, Sat May 18, 2013
Paul Butler says when President Obama delivers the commencement address at Morehouse, he has explaining to do.
updated 9:45 AM EDT, Sun May 19, 2013
Bob Greene on how 18th century Americans tried to make sense of the day with no sun
updated 8:57 PM EDT, Fri May 17, 2013
With guest Rep. Keith Ellison, John Avlon, Margaret Hoover and Dean Obeidallah discuss the president's scandal trifecta, hope for immigration and what Jolie's revelation means for women.
updated 1:09 PM EDT, Fri May 17, 2013
The press has turned on President Obama with a vengeance, writes Howard Kurtz
updated 2:01 PM EDT, Sat May 18, 2013
Donna Brazile says our democracy is endangered, not by the Russians, North Korea, Iran or even terrorists. To quote Pogo: "We have met the enemy and he is us."
updated 1:59 PM EDT, Sat May 18, 2013
Photographer Arne Svenson defends his show "Neighbors," portraits of the occupants of a building near him taken through their windows.
updated 9:37 AM EDT, Mon May 20, 2013
Theater critic Kevin Williamson was kicked out of a play when he took the phone away from an audience member and threw it. He says it was worth it.
updated 10:25 AM EDT, Sat May 18, 2013
U.S. actor Angelina Jolie (L) holds daughter Zahara as husband and actor Brad Pitt (C) carries son Maddox during a stroll on the seafront promenade at the historic Gateway of India outside their hotel in Mumbai on November 12, 2006.
Gil Welch says women must not panic over Angelina Jolie's mastectomies: 99% of women don't carry the BRCA1 gene.
updated 4:52 AM EDT, Sat May 18, 2013
JR's "Inside Out" project brings public spaces alive with giant representations of people
updated 3:22 PM EDT, Fri May 17, 2013
Roger Colinvaux says the IRS scandal is fundamentally about disclosure of donors, not tax-exempt status.
updated 7:49 AM EDT, Fri May 17, 2013
Alex Castellanos says Chris Matthews is wrong; the Washington controversies result from a government that is too big to control
updated 9:32 AM EDT, Mon May 20, 2013
Mike Downey says Los Angeles has well-funded but clueless sports teams.
updated 11:52 AM EDT, Fri May 17, 2013
Grace Liu says It's time for some tiger cubs to approvingly roar for our strict and demanding parents
updated 7:57 AM EDT, Fri May 17, 2013
Sens. Al Franken and Roger Wicker say we need a strong SEC to make sure credit ratings fraud doesn't bring down the economy again.
updated 10:25 AM EDT, Thu May 16, 2013
LZ Granderson says instead of reducing the blood alcohol content threshold, how about enforcing existing laws better?
updated 11:14 AM EDT, Thu May 16, 2013
Maia Goodell says the military should use civil legal remedies on sexual assault cases.
ADVERTISEMENT