E Poole
Beecham
English 101 10059
19 April 2010
Genetic Testing Imagine choosing your daughter to have high intelligence. No one would fault the parents for giving their daughter this advantage for life. Parents can make the decision to use any safe drug or therapy to enhance their future children to make them smarter, better, stronger, to increase their intelligence, height, or other traits (Zane). Testing for medical tendencies to screen and reduce the possibility of future illness or diseases is now feasible. Genetic testing can enhance and improve lives with immeasurable benefits. The rewards of this testing outweigh any reservations. Genetic testing are examinations of blood and other tissues of the body that doctors in the medical field prepare to test for possible defects of the body. These DNA based tests generally involves direct examination of the DNA molecule itself and are very sophisticated techniques of testing genetic disorders in the bodies of human beings. Prenatal genetic testing with the procedure of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD is a technique whereby testing is performed of an approximate three-day-old embryo to confirm that it does not carry a particular disease or diseases (Naik). The test predicts, with variable confidence, what the possible medical problems will be in the future. Then the doctor implants this embryo, which is free of that syndrome, in the mother's womb. It appears to be relatively easy to check the DNA and eliminate future diseases that are linked to a single malfunctioning gene such as cystic fibrosis or autism. In the 1990s, this type of prenatal genetic testing, PGD, was first introduced with vast numbers of parents utilizing this screening to avoid the potential hereditary passing of many deadly disorders to their children (Naik). In the very near future parents will be able to pick or select the best characteristics that we want in our future children. An Oxford professor Julian Savulescu states, “In about 10 years, however, we should be able to sequence anyone's genome DNA for about $400. This would allow parents to screen a pool of embryos, deciding which one they want to become their child based on its genetic characteristics.” (Zane). It appears that the science behind genetic testing has evolved to the point of designer babies, choosing the sex, the color of the eyes, intelligence level, skin tone, and even physical or sport abilities. A Colorado Company is now marketing genetic testing for a gene ACTN3 that purportedly predicts exceptional sport ability (McManus). As in many other realms, from marriage to end-of-life issues, genetic ethics and standards are being hashed out in the courts, in one lawsuit after another. What those cases are exposing is the relatively new belief that we should have a right to choose which babies come into the world. (Weil). While many countries have banned the use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for gender selection, the United States currently permits sex determination. Another survey by the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University taken in 2006 found that 42% or 58 of 137 genetic clinics offered a gender-selection service (Naik). Amazing, making the selecting a baby to be smart, choosing the sex, good-looking, and expectantly well adjusted.
Another major contribution of genetic testing is the ability to determine the paternity of a child or a person’s ancestry. This is a possible solution to many genetic situations where a father denies fatherhood of his child or a person needs help to trace his ancestor background. Paternity investigations can also include sibling tests and can prove ancestor relationships with many different ethnic backgrounds. DNA testing has proved that ancient people traveled great distances across the Pacific Ocean. For example, Hawaiians share a pronounced genetic lineage with the Polynesian people, and most European and Asian Americans can prove their descendent county or region (Doriott).
The physical risks associated with genetic testing are very small and not significant enough to make the whole practice unworthy. For instance, there is little pain experience when a sample of blood is taken from the patient’s body. When it comes to prenatal testing, a very small risk of losing pregnancy is perceptible since the sample of the amniotic fluid from around the fetus is required. Generally, little physical risks are apparently involved with the medical procedures.
The major risks associated with genetic testing are mostly emotional, social, and sometimes financial ones. When it comes to emotional risks, there is likelihood of people to feel guilty, anxious, angry, or even depressed when results are out. This can happen in cases such as when a diagnosis of the likelihood of a dangerous disease is being made genetically, determining the biological parents of a child, or where a major decision pertaining property or business is to be made using the results of the test. This risk currently is more manageable because there are professional genetic counselors available who theoretically prepare the patient for any possible testing outcome. When it comes to social risks, genetic testing creates tension within the involved families because this analysis can reveal information about other family members in addition to the data about the individual.
Financially the tests can range from very reasonable to expensive, a full paternity workup by a reputable lab service can cost from $1,000 to $2,500 (Goodwin). The financial cost involved in carrying out genetic testing also is one of the arguments by those against its practice. They argue that genetic testing can be an expensive practice and it might cause severe financial constraint to the involved person and to his dependants. However, a life saving revelation can be priceless.
One argument against genetic screening points out that many embryos will be not used if found to contain genetic defects. However, it is much more humane to discard this tiny collection of cells at this very early point than the likely outcomes of a later abortion or life with a crippling painful disease or serious defects. Making a decision to have the abilities to walk, hear, or see is far better than not to (Marrin). Utilizing genetic screening is a better way to ensure that a child is born healthy, with all possible opportunities to live well. There are other test results which cannot be kept as secret such as those concerning the abnormal development of the fetus. It is also necessary to have informed consent of the patient concerned before conducting genetic testing. This limits the practice especially when the patient is too ill to realize what is about to be done. Those against genetic testing argue that confidentiality is difficult to maintain and results could affect the social life of close family members. Recently, Congress passed a new law to protect against genetic discrimination and optimistically eliminate the fear that genetic testing results may affect the ability for individuals to secure employment or competitive insurance coverage (Genetic). Limited Federal regulations currently exist concerning genetic testing or genetic testing companies allowing the consumer to order tests directly and with limited accuracy. Recently, both California and New York started heavily enforcing new state regulations, but six states and the District of Columbia allow direct to the consumer testing results without any restrictions. Twenty-four states as of late 2008 require a health professional to order all genetic tests (Goodwin). Without professional assistance available due to the lack of regulations, the results might be misinterpreted and could be dangerous. A trained medical professional or genetic counselor is necessary for the explanation of the medical facts, the possible diagnosis, understanding options, the probable course of the disorder or disease, and the plan of action for the whole family (Fraser). Consequently, genetic testing is worthy practicing with the proper management or consideration of the risks and limitations that may arise. A strong majority of people taking the survey by The New York University School of Medicine appear to support genetic tests for the elimination of serious diseases. This recent survey with 999 people totaled 56% in favor of using genetic tests to counter blindness and 75% supported the tests for mental retardation.” (Naik). It is evident that genetic testing has both advantages and disadvantages to the life of the involved person, the proposed infant, and to the person’s family. When the advantages of genetic testing are compared with its disadvantages, it is evident that advantages outweigh the limitations. An argument can be made that by utilizing exercise or diets a person tries to improve their body, plastic surgery can eliminate minor flaws, education develops the mind, a blue pill can be taken for improving sex life, and now genetic research can help medicine to halt or slow down many diseases (Zane). Therefore, genetic testing is a major achievement and is an enormous step forward in the world of medicine.

Works Cited
Doriott, Candace. "Genetic Codes Unraveled: New Clues to Human History." Ancestry Magazine. ancestry.com. 01 Jan. 2000. Web. 12 Apr. 2010. .
Fraser, F.C. Genetic Counseling 1974 pp.636-659. International Birth Defects Information Systems. 26 Mar. 2010. Web. 16 Apr. 2010. < http://www.ibis-birthdefects.org/start/g_fraser.htm>.
National Human Genome Research Institute: Genetic Discrimination. National Institute of Health. 21 Sep. 2009. Web. 14 Apr. 2010. < http://www.genome.gov/10002077>.
Goodwin, Kristine. "Information Overload?" State Legislatures Vol. 34, No. 8 Sep 2008: 30-33. SIRS Researcher. Web. 18 Apr. 2010. .
Marrin, Minette. "Scientists playing God? We should rejoice." The Sunday Times. Times Newspapers LTD., 25 Jun. 2006. Web. 17 Apr. 2010. .
McManus, Kathy. "Mapping Your Kid's Genome." The Responsibility Project by Liberty Mutual. n.p. 01 Jan. 2009. Web, 16 Apr. 2010. .
Naik, Gautum. "A Baby, Please." Wall Street Journal 12 Feb 2009: A.10. SIRS Researcher. Web. 18 Apr. 2010. < http://sks.sirs.com.proxy.yc.edu/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SAZ0642-0-1990&artno=0000296374&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=Prenatal%20diagnosis&title=A%20Baby%2C%20Please&res=Y&ren=N&gov=N&lnk=N&ic=N>.
Weil, Elizabeth, "A Wrongful Birth?." New York Times Magazine 12 Mar 2006: 48-53. SIRS Researcher. Web. 16 April 2010. < http://sks.sirs.com.proxy.yc.edu/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SAZ0642-0-1990&artno=0000246126&type=ART>.
Zane, J. Peder. "At the Edge of Ethics." News & Observer (Raleigh, NC) 07 Oct. 2008: n.p. SIRS Researcher. Web. 16 Apr. 2010. .

People also fear that genetic testing results may also affect their ability to secure employment or insurance cover. Some argue that there is likelihood of the results to affect the social life of their close family members too (Pfeifer, 2006).

"Information is power, the adage goes, and in the brave, new world of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, that information has the potential to help people lower their odds for developing disease....Today [2008], consumers with curiosity, Internet savvy and a credit card can go online to one of dozens of direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies, and for a few hundred to a couple of thousand dollars find out if they are predisposed to certain cancers, …cystic fibrosis…, Alzheimer's, diabetes and the like." (State Legislatures) This article considers whether "more regulation is needed" for direct-to-consumer genetic testing. …“Critics cite a number of concerns, but the bottom line is consumers are apt to misinterpret their results, or worse, make potentially life-changing decisions based on the information…"They're telling consumers that they might be at an increased risk for disease," says Robin Grubs, president of the board for the American Board of Genetic Counseling. But what "they're giving the consumer is not proved."… A person could be diagnosed… with the elevated risk for Crohn's Disease, heart disease and obesity…and make life changing decisions unnecesaryly…Goetz has an elevated risk of developing prostate cancer and his risk for developing glaucoma is three times higher than for the average American…”Information is power, the adage goes, and in the brave, new world of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, that information has the potential to help people lower their odds for developing disease.”(Goodwin)
"Thanks to the sequencing of the human genome [the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up your DNA] in 2003, researchers are discovering variations that may be associated with certain traits and diseases," explains Ricki Lewis, Ph.D., the author of Human Genetics: Concepts and Applications. Some of these variations — known as SNPs — occur when just one tiny nucleotide among millions is out of order. These differences explain why my eyes are brown, my son's are blue, and his twin sister's are green. But more important, sets of SNPs can signal an increased vulnerability to certain health conditions, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and osteoporosis…Another crack in the crystal ball, according to critics, is that some of these mail-order tests have not been reviewed by a governing agency, such as the FDA. "It's still relatively early, and many of these products don't have a proven track record," says Chung. This can lead to a lot of people being unnecessarily worried or falsely reassured... Ultimately, genetic profiling is grounded in chance rather than certainty. "You can drive yourself nuts thinking about all the possible conditions you face," says Caplan. "But in the end, all of us will 'fail' some sort of genetic test, because we all have an elevated risk for one thing or another….In two to four weeks, you receive a full report detailing your relative risks (versus the average person's) for a wide variety of health conditions and traits — everything from lactose intolerance to Lou Gehrig's disease." So you might be better off putting your money toward a gym membership and healthy groceries than a test that still needs refining…However, for a host of other conditions, like multiple sclerosis or an aneurysm, knowing you have higher-than-normal odds may do nothing more than scare the pants off you. That anxiety can escalate — causing new health problems or exacerbating current ones. (Shaffer). Another problem with possible being told what may lie ahead is the placebo effect of causing your own disease. If you believe that you probably get cancer then you will probably get cancer.

A negative test result can be falsely reassuring in the presence of a known family mutation. In this scenario, misunderstanding of a test result's significance could be life-threatening if an opportunity to benefit from early cancer detection is missed because of a false sense of reassurance.
If a series of tests is made available to the public, and accepted in ALL variations, who are we to pick and choose which ones are ethical, or socially acceptable? If I could pay money to ensure that my child would be one of the smartest people in the world, would I. Yes, I would. I don't see much difference between athleteic or intellegence.

A writer for the New York Sunday Times states, “Admittedly genetic screening means that embryos carrying disabilities and diseases will be discarded. It is a stretch, however, to use the word destroyed, or even killed, as the test is done on embryos that are only three days old.” (Marrin).

One argument against genetic screening points out that many embryos will be not used if found to contain genetic defects. However, it is much more humane to discard this tiny collection of cells at this very early point than the likely outcomes of a later abortion or life with a crippling painful disease or serious defects. Making a decision to have the abilities to walk, hear, or see is far better than not to. Utilizing genetic screening is a better way to ensure that a child is born healthy, with all possible opportunities to live well.

And what is appealing about this early screening is that it offers the that, in the foreseeable future, abortion and late abortion will be less frequently used in dealing with serious defects and disabilities It would be far better to be able to walk, or hear or see than not to. It would be far better not to have a miserable fate like Huntington’s disease or lack of sight. It is easier and better in every way to get rid of a tiny collection of cells