Decoding infant DNA poses ethical dilemma
WASHINGTON — Little Amelia Sloan became a pioneer shortly after her birth.
The healthy baby is part of a large research project outside the nation's capital that is decoding the DNA of hundreds of infants. New parents in a few other cities soon can start signing up for smaller studies to explore whether what is called genome sequencing — fully mapping someone's genes to look for health risks — should become a part of newborn care.
It is full of ethical challenges.
Should parents be told only about childhood threats? Or would they want to learn if their babies carried a key gene for, say, breast cancer after they are grown? Could knowing about risks alter how a family treats an otherwise healthy youngster? And how accurate is the technology — could it raise too many false alarms?
This is the newest frontier in the genetic revolution: how early to peek into someone's DNA and how to make use of that health forecast without causing needless worry.
“This was something that was looming over the horizon,” said Dr. Alan Guttmacher, a pediatrician and geneticist who heads the National Institutes of Health's child health division. Last month, NIH announced a $25 million, five-year pilot project in four cities — Boston, San Francisco, Chapel Hill, N.C., and Kansas City — to start answering some of the questions before the technology is widely offered for babies.
Today, the 4 million U.S. babies born annually have a heel pricked in the hospital, providing a spot of blood to be tested for signs of at least 30 rare diseases. The newborn screening catches several thousand affected babies each year in time for early treatment to prevent death, brain damage or other disabilities. It is considered one of the nation's most successful public health programs.
A complete genetic blueprint would go well beyond what that newborn blood spot currently tells doctors and parents — allowing a search for potentially hundreds of other conditions, some that arise in childhood and some later, some preventable and some not.
“If I truly believed that knowing one's genome was going to be transformative to medicine over the next decade or more, then wouldn't I want to start generating that information around the time of birth?” asked Dr. John Niederhuber, former director of the National Cancer Institute who oversees one of the largest baby-sequencing research projects to date.
At Niederhuber's Inova Translational Medicine Institute in Falls Church, Va., researchers are mapping the genomes of newborns, along with their parents and other relatives for comparison. The long-term goal of the privately funded study is to uncover genetic patterns that predict complex health problems, from prematurity to developmental disorders.
But the experimental tests will turn up some gene mutations already well-known to cause serious ailments, and participating parents must choose up front whether to be told. They don't get a full report card of their baby's genes. Only ones that cause treatable or preventable conditions — so-called medically actionable findings — are revealed, to the family's doctor.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- 1Q earnings reports boost stocks
- Reagan shooter Hinckley closer to permanent freedom
- Minnesota Somali men foiled in plot to join terrorists in Syria
- Missouri town, new mayor grapple with mass resignations
- Federal agency proposes removing most humpback whales from endangered species list
- Foggy Interstate 70 pileup injures dozen in Colorado
- Breast cancers predicted to rise by 50 percent by 2030
- Muslim leaders mixed on effort to curb extremism
- Secret Service, Ebola coverage wins Pulitzers
- Security to tighten for airport workers
- Convict offered sale of art stolen in 1990