As usual, Daniel has an outstanding roundup of the latest developments in the personal genomics kerfuffle (or is it a saga?). If Navigenics wins its argument in California — i.e., interpreting a test is not itself a test and therefore not subject to regulation as such — then will we finally be able to move on to the next existential crisis?
In the immortal words of Woody Allen, “I’d call you a sadistic sodomistic necrophile, but that’s beating a dead horse.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I work as an Assistant Professor in the Duke University Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy (although this site and its content are my own).
In 2007 I became the fourth subject in Harvard geneticist George Church's Personal Genome Project. As the PGP moves forward, I am chronicling the dawn of personal genomics, that is, people obtaining their genomic information for whatever reason(s) and figuring out what to do with it. I am interested in the relevant technologies and especially the attendant privacy and other ethical/legal/social issues.
This blog may also discuss some of my non-genome interests or, to paraphrase Dwight Yoakam, "Guitars, Cadillacs, hillbilly music, etc etc."
The header image comes from the Liz Lerman Dance Exchange's multimedia performance piece, "Ferocious Beauty: Genome."
June 26th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Wait a second…..Isn’t interpretation given to a patient considered Medical Genetics????? I am confused here….
Interpretation given to a physician is NOT…..but to a patient…….this could be painting into a corner buddy.
-Steve
www.thegenesherpa.blogspot.com
June 30th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
What if it’s interpretation regarding non-disease related traits? What if the data acquisition and data analysis are done by separate people? Which one is the one “practicing medicine”?
The point of my questions is to illustrate that this is a new development, which can’t be regulated under the old paradigm of DTC genetic testing. People with the most experience in the field have the hardest time seeing this.