Nav: Home

Does genetic testing pose psychosocial risks?

July 08, 2019

For the last quarter century, researchers have been asking whether genetic information might have negative psychosocial effects. Anxiety, depression, disrupted relationships, and heightened stigmatization have all been posited as possible outcomes--but not consistently found. What accounts for the discrepancy?

A new special report published by The Hastings Center explores this question. It considers the ways in which the prediction of adverse consequences has not been borne out by empirical research--and also the limits of those data. Given that today's genomic information is more voluminous and complex than the results that were at issue in the older studies, it is not likely that simple answers will be forthcoming to the question of the psychosocial impacts of receiving genetic or genomic information. Rather, the answers will depend on factors that include the condition being tested for, the reason for the testing, the social context of the testing, and the psychology of the individual being tested.

"Just coming to better understanding why one-size-fits-all answers will not be forthcoming is itself progress," states the introduction to the report, written by its editors, Erik Parens, a senior research scholar at The Hastings Center, and Paul Appelbaum, the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine and Law, and director of the Center for Law, Ethics and Psychiatry at Columbia University, who is a Hastings Center Fellow.

The special report, "Looking for the Psychosocial Impacts of Genetic Information," is the product of a conference of the same name held at Columbia University in February 2018 and cosponsored by Columbia's Center for Research on Ethical, Legal & Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic & Behavioral Genetics and The Hastings Center.

The report is divided into three parts, each with three essays. The first part examines the historical and social context for current debates about research on the impacts of communication genetic information to patients.

The second part focuses on studies that are skeptical about the existence of large psychosocial harms. In one of the essays, "Assessing the Psychological Impact of Genetic Susceptibility Testing," Scott Roberts discusses the findings of a major study that found that people who learned that they had a variant of the ApoE4 gene that increases the risk for Alzheimer's disease did not show elevated signs of depression or anxiety. However, Roberts also recognizes that there's much that is not known about the psychosocial effects of ApoE4 testing, and cites evidence that people who learn of a positive result show worse performance on memory tests.

The third part is devoted to studies that support reasons for continued concern about harms from genetic testing. One of the essays, "Actions and Uncertainty: How Prenatally Diagnosed Variants of Uncertain Significance Become Actionable," recounts how women talk about their experiences learning genetic information about their fetus that is of unknown significance. For some women, this information caused anxiety both during pregnancy and after their children were born. In addition, many of the women perceived their children as vulnerable, even if they showed no signs of the condition being tested for. "Raised levels of uncertainty as a result of [variations of unknown significance] carry major implications for parenting behaviors, children's outcomes, and medical and school system overuse, outcomes seldom assessed in research about genetic technologies," write Allison Werner-Lin, Judith L. M. McCoyd, and Barbara A. Bernhardt.

"It is reassuring that, on average, the receipt of genomic information about single genes does not have large, negative psychosocial effects on those who choose to receive that information," write Parens and Appelbaum. "But it is surely not the case that, because we see few negative psychosocial impacts in people who chose testing for informational purposes, we should expect to see equally few negative impacts among all people." They conclude that "we have an extraordinary amount more to learn about the psychosocial implications of sharing genetic information."
For more information and to interview Erik Parens, contact:

Susan Gilbert
Director of Communications
The Hastings Center
845-424-4040 x 244

To interview Paul Appelbaum, contact:

Paul Appelbaum
Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine & Law
Columbia University Irving Medical Center

The Hastings Center

Related Genetic Testing Articles:

Genetic testing provides insights to sudden unexplained deaths in Amish community
Using an exome molecular autopsy, Michael Ackerman, M.D., Ph.D., and his associates conducted genetic testing of four siblings who each died suddenly during exercise.
Breast cancer patients to be evaluated for genetic testing
The guidance from the ACMG differs from a consensus guideline issued in February by the American Society of Breast Surgeons, which recommended genetic testing for all newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer.
New technique isolates placental cells for non-invasive genetic testing
A new technique for isolating cells carrying the full fetal genome from cervical swabs could enable doctors to diagnose genetic disorders without using needles to harvest cells from the placenta.
BRCA1/2 genetic testing recommendations still leave issues unresolved
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force offers new guidelines on BRCA1/2 genetic testing.
Does genetic testing pose psychosocial risks?
For the last quarter century, researchers have been asking whether genetic information might have negative psychosocial effects.
Genetic testing has a data problem; New software can help
As at-home genetic testing becomes more popular, companies are grappling with how to store all the accumulating data and how to process results quickly.
Genetic testing gives answers on developmental disorders during pregnancy
Genetic testing improves diagnoses of abnormalities in developing babies picked up during ultrasound scans, scientists report today in The Lancet.
In prenatal testing, 'genomics' sometimes sees what genetic tests can't
One of the first large prospective studies of its kind reveals the potential -- and limitations -- of a new form of genetic testing in pregnancy.
Genetic testing does not cause undue worry for breast cancer patients
As genetic testing for breast cancer has become more complex, evaluating a panel of multiple genes, it introduces more uncertainty about the results.
For patients with kidney disease, genetic testing may soon be routine
DNA sequencing can be used to identify the underlying genetic cause of many rare types of chronic kidney disease, leading to better treatment, finds a new study from Columbia University.
More Genetic Testing News and Genetic Testing Current Events

Trending Science News

Current Coronavirus (COVID-19) News

Top Science Podcasts

We have hand picked the top science podcasts of 2020.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Listen Again: Reinvention
Change is hard, but it's also an opportunity to discover and reimagine what you thought you knew. From our economy, to music, to even ourselves–this hour TED speakers explore the power of reinvention. Guests include OK Go lead singer Damian Kulash Jr., former college gymnastics coach Valorie Kondos Field, Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs, and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#562 Superbug to Bedside
By now we're all good and scared about antibiotic resistance, one of the many things coming to get us all. But there's good news, sort of. News antibiotics are coming out! How do they get tested? What does that kind of a trial look like and how does it happen? Host Bethany Brookeshire talks with Matt McCarthy, author of "Superbugs: The Race to Stop an Epidemic", about the ins and outs of testing a new antibiotic in the hospital.
Now Playing: Radiolab

Dispatch 6: Strange Times
Covid has disrupted the most basic routines of our days and nights. But in the middle of a conversation about how to fight the virus, we find a place impervious to the stalled plans and frenetic demands of the outside world. It's a very different kind of front line, where urgent work means moving slow, and time is marked out in tiny pre-planned steps. Then, on a walk through the woods, we consider how the tempo of our lives affects our minds and discover how the beats of biology shape our bodies. This episode was produced with help from Molly Webster and Tracie Hunte. Support Radiolab today at