Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us

Genes Are Us


(Photo: Lightspring/Shutterstock)

The FDA Is Not Anti-Genetics

• January 17, 2014 • 12:00 PM

(Photo: Lightspring/Shutterstock)

Despite the recent crackdown on 23andMe, the FDA is engaging with fast-moving biotechnology advances. However, there’s still much work to be done.

When the FDA shut down biotech company 23andMe’s direct-to-consumer Personal Genome Service, many in the biotech community worried that the FDA was risking the survival of a nascent industry that would revolutionize medical care with new genetic technologies. But lost in the story about 23andMe was the news that the FDA had just issued its very first approval for a next-generation DNA analysis machine, clearly signaling that the agency recognizes the growing significance of genetic testing in medicine.

The FDA approved a machine called the MiSeqDx, “the first FDA-regulated test system that allows laboratories to develop and validate sequencing of any part of a patient’s genome.” For a few hundred dollars, this little machine can analyze an amount of DNA in 24 hours that, 10 years ago, would have taken a dozen machines two weeks and cost nearly a million dollars. The rate of improvement in our technical capacity to read out DNA has been stunningly rapid, outpacing even the expectations of Moore’s Law, the gold standard for progress in the computer industry. Biomedical researchers can now consider ways to bring DNA analysis into the clinic that would have been impossible before. Rather than testing for mutations in one gene at a time, and in only very specific groups of patients, it’s becoming feasible to scan much larger portions of a patient’s DNA as part of a routine health assessment for everyone. What’s happening in medical genetics is the equivalent of having the operating costs of a private jet suddenly drop to those of a Honda Civic—in which case you’d probably start considering previously unthinkable destinations for not only the annual family vacation, but for three-day weekends as well.

In a report issued last fall (PDF), the FDA laid out its view of the regulatory challenges posed by personalized genetic medicine. At issue is the idea that with cheap, accessible DNA analysis, medical care can be personalized to match each person’s genetic makeup. Cancer diagnoses, rather than being based on abnormalities that are visible under a microscope, would instead be classified more effectively by their underlying genetic mutations. The typical trial-and-error approach to find the right drug for a patient suffering from depression would give way to a genetic test that would indicate the best drug.

Does the FDA need to protect you from information about your genome, especially if some of that information is potentially unreliable? Or should anyone be able to buy a tentative analysis of their genome based on the latest research?

It sounds great in principle, but the result is a major headache for the FDA, because modern genetic medicine is demolishing regulatory concepts and categories that the agency has long used to ensure that drugs and diagnostics are safe and effective.

Take genetic tests for instance. The two primary criteria the FDA uses to evaluate diagnostics are analytical validity and clinical validity. As the FDA report describes them, “analytical validity refers to how well the test measures what it is supposed to measure, whereas clinical validity looks at how well the test predicts who has or does not have a disease or condition for which it is being tested.” A typical diagnostic test is required to be both analytically and clinically valid, but for large-scale genetic tests this doesn’t make sense. Tests that analyze hundreds or thousands of regions of your DNA at once can be analytically valid—that is, they accurately determine the identity of mutations in your genome—but the clinical validity will vary with the individual mutation, depending on whether that mutation has a discernible effect. Furthermore, clinical validity for any one mutation will often be in flux, as new research clarifies the role of poorly understood mutations.

Another challenge with personalization is that a drug and a diagnostic test are more likely to be paired in their development. Some drugs, like the cystic fibrosis drug Kalydeco, are deliberately targeted only at patients with a specific mutation. Pairing genetic tests with therapeutics makes it difficult to track down the source of problems when something doesn’t work. As the FDA report notes, “An adverse event associated with the use of a therapeutic product may have arisen as a result of failure of the test to identify the optimal subset of patients due to design deficiencies, manufacturing deficiencies, or operator error.”

To respond to these challenges, the FDA report describes the changes you’d expect from a large and complex government agency tasked with keeping up with a large and complex industry. There are restructurings, efforts to increase communication and coordination among different agency centers, and committees to rethink the process by which some new treatments and diagnostics are approved.

WHILE THE FDA MAY be making an admirable effort to confront the issues raised in the report, the authors ignored the elephant in the room: the wild frontier of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, represented by 23andMe. Consumer-oriented genome services undermine one of the biggest regulatory concepts that the FDA depends on: whether or not something counts as a medical diagnostic device. Does the FDA need to protect you from information about your genome, especially if some of that information is potentially unreliable? Or should anyone be able to buy a tentative analysis of their genome based on the latest research?

This is where medical genetics shades into recreational genetics. It doesn’t help that these services are often advertised with the dubious claim that they will empower you to take your health into your own hands. As a group of researchers, physicians, and health policy experts noted in a recent commentary, “there is little evidence to support the basic premise implied by the empowerment rhetoric—namely that individuals will use genomic risk information to adopt a healthier lifestyle and, thus, reduce their risk for chronic diseases.”

Even if a personal genome analysis is not useful yet, it is hard to make the case that we should be barred from it. These services feed our curiosity about ourselves, and they are an opportunity to educate consumers about genetics. Of course our genetics are inextricably tied up with our health, which means that direct-to-consumer genetic services will always threaten to impinge on the FDA’s territory. How it should respond is an issue not yet resolved.

Michael White
Michael White is a systems biologist at the Department of Genetics and the Center for Genome Sciences and Systems Biology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, where he studies how DNA encodes information for gene regulation. He co-founded the online science pub The Finch and Pea. Follow him on Twitter @genologos.

More From Michael White

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

December 18 • 4:00 PM

How I Navigated Life as a Newly Sober Mom

Saying “no” to my kids was harder than saying “no” to alcohol. But for their sake and mine, I had to learn to put myself first sometimes.

December 18 • 2:00 PM

Women in Apocalyptic Fiction Shaving Their Armpits

Because our interest in realism apparently only goes so far.

December 18 • 12:00 PM

The Paradox of Choice, 10 Years Later

Paul Hiebert talks to psychologist Barry Schwartz about how modern trends—social media, FOMO, customer review sites—fit in with arguments he made a decade ago in his highly influential book, The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less.

December 18 • 10:00 AM

What It’s Like to Spend a Few Hours in the Church of Scientology

Wrestling with thetans, attempting to unlock a memory bank, and a personality test seemingly aimed at people with depression. This is Scientology’s “dissemination drill” for potential new members.

December 18 • 8:00 AM

Gendering #BlackLivesMatter: A Feminist Perspective

Black men are stereotyped as violent, while black women are rendered invisible. Here’s why the gendering of black lives matters.

December 18 • 7:06 AM

Apparently You Can Bring Your Religion to Work

New research says offices that encourage talk of religion actually make for happier workplaces.

December 18 • 6:00 AM

The Very Weak and Complicated Links Between Mental Illness and Gun Violence

Vanderbilt University’s Jonathan Metzl and Kenneth MacLeish address our anxieties and correct our assumptions.

December 18 • 4:00 AM

Should Movies Be Rated RD for Reckless Driving?

A new study finds a link between watching films featuring reckless driving and engaging in similar behavior years later.

December 17 • 4:00 PM

How to Run a Drug Dealing Network in Prison

People tend not to hear about the prison drug dealing operations that succeed. asks a veteran of the game to explain his system.

December 17 • 2:00 PM

Gender Segregation of Toys Is on the Rise

Charting the use of “toys for boys” and “toys for girls” in American English.

December 17 • 12:41 PM

Why the College Football Playoff Is Terrible But Better Than Before

The sample size is still embarrassingly small, but at least there’s less room for the availability cascade.

December 17 • 11:06 AM

Canadian Kids Have a Serious Smoking Problem

Bootleg cigarette sales could be leading Canadian teens to more serious drugs, a recent study finds.

December 17 • 10:37 AM

A Public Lynching in Sproul Plaza

When photographs of lynching victims showed up on a hallowed site of democracy in action, a provocation was issued—but to whom, by whom, and why?

December 17 • 8:00 AM

What Was the Job?

This was the year the job broke, the year we accepted a re-interpretation of its fundamental bargain and bought in to the push to get us to all work for ourselves rather than each other.

December 17 • 6:00 AM

White Kids Will Be Kids

Even the “good” kids—bound for college, upwardly mobile—sometimes break the law. The difference? They don’t have much to fear. A professor of race and social movements reflects on her teenage years and faces some uncomfortable realities.

December 16 • 4:00 PM

How Fear of Occupy Wall Street Undermined the Red Cross’ Sandy Relief Effort

Red Cross responders say there was a ban on working with the widely praised Occupy Sandy relief group because it was seen as politically unpalatable.

December 16 • 3:30 PM

Murder! Mayhem! And That’s Just the Cartoons!

New research suggests deaths are common features of animated features aimed at children.

December 16 • 1:43 PM

In Tragedy, Empathy Still Dependent on Proximity

In spite of an increasingly connected world, in the face of adversity, a personal touch is most effective.

December 16 • 12:00 PM

The ‘New York Times’ Is Hooked on Drug du Jour Journalism

For the paper of record, addiction is always about this drug or that drug rather than the real causes.

December 16 • 10:00 AM

What Is the Point of Academic Books?

Ultimately, they’re meant to disseminate knowledge. But their narrow appeal makes them expensive to produce and harder to sell.

December 16 • 8:00 AM

Unjust and Unwell: The Racial Issues That Could Be Affecting Your Health Care

Physicians and medical students have the same problems with implicit bias as the rest of us.

December 16 • 6:00 AM

If You Get Confused Just Listen to the Music Play

Healing the brain with the Grateful Dead.

December 16 • 4:00 AM

Another Casualty of the Great Recession: Trust

Research from Britain finds people who were laid off from their jobs expressed lower levels of generalized trust.

December 15 • 4:00 PM

When Charter Schools Are Non-Profit in Name Only

Some charters pass along nearly all their money to for-profit companies hired to manage the schools. It’s an arrangement that’s raising eyebrows.

Follow us

Apparently You Can Bring Your Religion to Work

New research says offices that encourage talk of religion actually make for happier workplaces.

Canadian Kids Have a Serious Smoking Problem

Bootleg cigarette sales could be leading Canadian teens to more serious drugs, a recent study finds.

The Hidden Psychology of the Home Ref

That old myth of home field bias isn’t a myth at all; it’s a statistical fact.

A Word of Caution to the Holiday Deal-Makers

Repeat customers—with higher return rates and real bargain-hunting prowess—can have negative effects on a company’s net earnings.

Crowdfunding Works for Science

Scientists just need to put forth some effort.

The Big One

One in two United States senators and two in five House members who left office between 1998 and 2004 became lobbyists. November/December 2014

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.