Here are a few thoughts on Nic Fleming’s piece on personal genome scans, of which one was our own, deCODEme:

Our genomes are all remarkably similar. And so it is the differences that are most interesting and important, and that make us who we are.

The same can be said of genetic testing services. We at deCODE were not at all surprised that Mr. Fleming found that he got some varying results from the three genome scans that he tried. Indeed we would be surprised (and more than a little dismayed) if he hadn’t. Analyzing the genome – accurately detecting which genetic markers individuals have at specific points in the genome, and correlating these variations with risk of a range of common diseases – has been our bread and butter for well over a decade. With the analysis of hundreds of thousands of genomes under our belt, we can say with some authority that it is not a trivial business. We would never ourselves rely on consultants to tell us what variants to look for, what they mean, or to oversee the genotypic analysis itself. And we certainly would not offer such treatment to doctors or members of the public.

That said, it would be a strange logic that therefore suggests that the whole field, or the very well validated science that now exists linking specific markers to risk of common diseases, should be lumped in together as though all are nothing but dot-com storefronts selling DNA analysis today where they might have been selling sofas last year. deCODEme or our diagnostic tests, for example, only detect risk variants that meet exacting criteria: they must have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and replicated in large cohorts from several populations. Many genetic risk factors for common diseases have passed this high bar, and have thus been as well validated, as most non-genetic risk factors were when they were first brought into clinical use. As Mr. Fleming notes, there are physicians who are incorporating genetic risk factors into their clinical practice and with some important successes that individuals have been willing to share with the world. (We are posting some of these stories on this blog and on the personal stories page of deCODEme).

So, as suggested by Mr. Fleming’s piece and by Lord Taverne and others he interviewed, it is of pressing importance to establish high scientific and technical standards and regulations for such tests. We therefore hope that the Human Genetics Commission, and other oversight bodies in Europe, the US, and elsewhere will continue to scrutinize how best to provide an effective sheriff for this new territory. Doing so will enable individuals and the healthcare system to take full benefit from the potential of this new technology, while protecting the public from unscrupulous cowboys. At the least – since some people like cavorting with fun-loving bandit types – everyone would know who was who.

Edward Farmer
Chief Communications Officer
deCODE genetics