Davis 1

Sheridan Davis Jamie McBeth-Smith ENGL 1010-014 30 November 2013 Genetic Testing Is it Right for Everyone? Does knowing your genetic makeup make you healthier? The advances in scientific technology have made astonishing discoveries in the field of genetics. There are companies popping up that for $99 you can order an at home DNA kit and receive a small sample of you genetic sequence. It is a complicated process and not easy to understand without your doctors guidance. For a full genetic profile it can be very expensive and possibly not covered by your insurance company. There are also no real guarantees; the testing only indicates probabilities of having or developing a disease. Your family history already provides some insight of the disposition you may have to certain diseases. Are these tests necessary? Many years ago a cousin of mine was diagnosed with a genetic disease that has no cure and is terminal; she was only 5 years old at the time. The gene is recessive and both parents have to be carriers to have the disease. My aunt and uncle have four children, one has the disease, two have had genetic profiling to see if they are carriers, and one decided not to be tested. In Human Origins, a class I am currently taking, there is a section on genes and DNA. While watching a documentary in the class many of these concerns were discussed. I had not given much thought to the advantages or disadvantages of knowing your genetic. The following articles bring up

Davis 2

some interesting developments and points of view concerning this issue. What about children and fetuses being tested? Is it an invasion of privacy? Should certain genes be allowed to be patented? Does knowing the probabilities make you healthier? To help in writing and formulating this paper the articles will be summarized and analyzed to provide the answer to the question: Should genetic testing become routine? Does it knowing your generic makeup make you healthier?

Brown, Eryn. "Genetic couselors." 18 April 2011. Los Angeles Times. 1 November 2013 <www.articles.latimes.com/print/2011/apr/18/health/la-genetic-counselors>.

Summary: Eryn Brown attended Harvard University and is currently a Science writer, Letters editor and editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times, senior writer at Fortune Magazine, and Editorial researcher at PC Magazine. Her article Genetic counselors help patients discusses the role of genetic counselors in making sense of DNA issues. The job of a genetic counselor is to give patients a place to start, deliver genetic test results, translate the medical terminology into information that is easy to understand, and help patients figure out how to deal with the news. They become the go-between for patients and doctors or other medical specialists. Brown affirms the important aspect of knowing the science behind genetics and also being able to help people cope with life altering medical information, which is sometimes good and sometimes difficult. There is often a rapport built, and many patients see their genetic counselors for years.

Davis 3

The advance in technology has changed the role of genetic counselors. They no longer just counsel parents who have a baby with a birth defect; they also synthesize complicated results for chronic diseases, like heart disease, cancer, mental illness, etc. Brown points out that after counseling there are those who decide they would rather not know about the possibility of serious genetic illnesses for themselves or their children. The decision to test or not to test is very complex and is a not the same for everyone. That is where the counselors come in; they provide the opportunity for all possible scenarios and assist the patients in making the best informed decisions for themselves and their families.

Rhetorical Analysis: Eryn Brown attended Harvard University and is currently a Science writer, Letters editor and editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times, senior writer at Fortune Magazine, and Editorial researcher at PC Magazine. The article was written to possible introduce the importance of Genetic Counselors. Brown presents herself as knowledgeable through her experience as a Science writer. She presents facts and statistics of the field of genetic counseling and includes experiences of patients. Genetic research is advancing and with that the need for genetic counseling is also increasing.

Reflection: I feel it is very important to educate yourself before undergoing any kind of medical procedure, including genetic profiling. There are many aspects to consider before making such a decision. Too much information and medical jargon can be overwhelming and it is important to get the guidance and expertise of a professional.

Davis 4

Hooper, Joseph. "Crack Yourr Own DNA Code." 2013. Men's Journal Magazine. 1 Novemmber 2013 <www.mensjournal.com/essential/print-view/crack-your-own-dna-code>.

Summary: Joseph Hooper wrote Crack You Own DNA Code for Mens Journal. He states that genetic at home genetic tests, like the those offered by 23andMe, Inherent Health, Pathway Genomics, and other companies, can arm us with data about disease risk that we can use to help make lifestyle decisions, allowing us to take our health into our own hands. A genetic test is less time consuming and less invasive than a blood test or having a MRI. By ordering a test off one of the websites, you provide a DNA a cheek swab or vial of saliva- and mail it back. After about a month you receive an email of your genetic analysis. Through 23andMe, your analysis will show a probability of 120 diseases that includes asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular disease, and Parkinsons or Alzheimers. There is also the screening for 50 less common genetic mutations, like cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, and drug sensitivities. He points out that there are some things that will not be in the analysis and can only be obtained through certain tests given by a physician, like cancer, type 2 diabetes, and coronary artery disease. Pathway Genomics is a San Diego based company that offers screening through a doctor to determine your Fit Panel. The test is ordered, sent electronically to your doctor who interprets the results using a script provided by Pathway. Through 79 genetic markers and matched with data from population studies, the analysis determines food cravings, lower levels of various vitamins, and certain food sensitivities. If this information is taken to

Davis 5

Equinox gyms in San Francisco, L.A., and Dallas they will help you it together a diet and exercise program based on your specific genotype.

Rhetorical Analysis: Joseph Hooper is a freelance writer in New York and wrote Crack your own DNA code for Mens Journal. He is writing to tech savvy, health conscience men. Hooper reasons that the growing research being done in genetics is providing the knowledge of personal genomic information to help improve health. It could give the motivation to make lifestyle changes that otherwise you would not even consider.

Reflection: There are some things that you will probably already know about your probability to develop some diseases, based on your family history. Does knowing certain things really motivate people to become healthier? We all know that we should eat right and exercise, and get regular medical checkups.

Jost, Kenneth. "Patenting Human Genes: Should the Supreme Court uphold patents on human genes?" CQ Researcher (2013): 475-479.

Summary: Kenneth Jost wrote Patenting Human Genes for CQ Researcher in May 2013. The patent of the genes, including BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes by Myriad Genetics has become a highly controversial issue. The U.S. Supreme Court case brought against Myriad by a coalition of doctors, patients, scientists, womens health groups and the

Davis 6

ACLU claims that the issuance of patents on human genes is not ethical. It limits other companies from doing further research and using the genes in genetic testing. For many women, including Kathleen Maxian and her sister, the lack of complete testing has brought devastating consequences that could have been lessened or even prevented. Maxian was diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer, years after her sister had been diagnosed with breast cancer and the genetic test she had for the presence of the BRCA gene came back as negative. At the time Myriad had a policy limiting BRCA testing to those with close family members who had either breast or ovarian cancer, since the sisters test had come back negative there did not seem the need to pursue a second test. Maxian was not concerned with pursuing testing for herself. The case reached the Supreme Court with Myriad arguing that the discovery of the genes was a scientific breakthrough entitled to patent protection (475). They also contend that they are on the leading front in research and advancement in genetic testing. Without the patenting of genes biotech companies would not invest the billions of dollars that is needed in furthering research to develop new medicines and diagnostics.

Rhetorical Analysis: Kenneth Jost graduated from Harvard College and Georgetown University Law Center. He has written several books on the Supreme Court, and the blog Jost on Justice. The facts and data he uses establishes his knowledge and expertise on laws and the effects. Jost uses the personal story of the two sisters experience with genetics testing and Myriad makes the article relatable and brings it home.

Davis 7

Reflection: It is not ethical for a company to hold a patent and all rights on something that could mean life or death for someone. The research being done in the areas of medicine are groundbreaking and for many extremely beneficial, however if something halts the benefit of saving a life it becomes an issue of moral and ethical principles.

Schwartz, Karen. "Center helps give Jewish couples a genetic peace of mind." 2 January 2013. Chicago Tribune. 1 November 2013 <www.articeles.chicagotribune.com/2013-0102/health/ct-x-0102-jewish-genetic-testing-20130103_1_taysachs-genetic-disorderscarriers>.

Summary: Karen Schwartz is a journalist, freelance healthcare and business writer. She lives in the Greater Chicago area and has written for the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and Cains Chicago Business. Her article Center helps give Jewish couples focuses on genetic testing being offered through synagogues to couples of Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jewish decent. There are higher risks of genetic diseases, like Tay-Sachs and beta thalassemia, in people of these ethnic backgrounds. When the Center for Jewish Genetics started in 1999 they were testing for four medical conditions. With the advances in genetic technology, they now offer genetic testing and counseling for 18 autosomal recessive disorders, which means both parents have to be carriers for a child to have the disorder. Some of these diseases include Canavan disease, cystic fibrosis, and familial dysautonomia. Screening for hereditary cancer like breast and ovarian cancer is also offered to Ashkenazi Jewish women. There is a higher risk of the gene mutation BRCA in the Jewish population.

Davis 8

Rhetorical Analysis: Karen Schwartz is a journalist, freelance healthcare and business writer. She includes stories of real couples to establish a connection with readers. The use of facts and statistics establish her knowledge on the issue concerning the increase of some diseases within certain ethnic communities.

Reflection: The center offers not only testing, but also counseling to the couples who undergo screening. This seems to be critical in what steps to take in making decisions before starting families. I am not sure that knowing the possibility that you might have a child with a serious medical condition is worth all the stress and heartache. It is a doubleedged sword.

Wapner, Jessica. "Supreme Court and DNA: No one can own a gene." 15 June 2013. Los Angeles Times. 2 November 2013 <http://www.latimes.com/print/2013/jun/15/opiniom/la-oe-wapner-dna-supreme-court>.

Summary: Jessica Wapner is a freelance science writer for the New York Times, Scientific American, Slate, and the Los Angeles Times. She has recently written her first book The Philadelphia Chromosome: A Mutant Gene and the Quest to Cure Cancer at a Genetic Level, in spring 2013. Her article for the Los Angeles Times Supreme Court and DNA: No one can own a gene, focuses on the ruling from the Supreme Court against patents

Davis 9

for two cancer genes. A diagnostics testing company, Myriad Genetics based in Utah, held patents on both of the genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. A woman with one of the genetic mutations has an even greater increased risk of breast cancer - 50% to 80%. For ovarian cancer the risk is 2%, with the mutation it jumps to 20% to 50%. In 1990 scientist at Myriad discovered the exact chromosomal location of the two genes. The company was granted a patent on the isolated DNA and any rights on any series of 15 nucleotides in the complete sequence in the late 1990s. This prevented any institutions and companies from providing genetic testing for the genes. To have the genetic testing for the genes women had to go to Myriad, which was expensive and often required a second opinion. The first court case against Myriad was in 2009, by Dr. Harry Ostrer, who had been sending DNA samples to the University of Pennsylvanias Diagnostic Laboratory for BRCA testing. Myriad brought patent infringement against the laboratory, which had to agree to stop any testing. Dr. Ostrer, a group of patients, and other doctors filed suit against Myriad. The patent claim was upheld, however a petition was sent to the Supreme Court to hear the case. On June 13, 2013 the Supreme Court decision was delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, The location and order of the nucleotides existed in nature before Myriad found them. The court did however, rule in favor for patenting complementary DNA and cDNA, which is strands of DNA synthesized in labs for genetic research.

Rhetorical Analysis: Jessica Wapner is a freelance science writer for the New York Times, Scientific American, Slate, and the Los Angeles Times. Her knowledge on the subject of

Davis 10

the patenting genes is shown in the research she has presented. The article is informative and she uses statistics with current facts and information. It is an issue that we all should be informed about.

Reflection: The Supreme Court ruling against further patenting of genes is an important decision that could impact each of us at present or the future. We dont always know how our health or the health of our loved ones could change drastically. Each and every one of us needs to be aware of the advancements concerning new research and technologies, especially in the health care industry.