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."
-end-
For more information and to interview Erik Parens, contact:

Susan Gilbert
Director of Communications
The Hastings Center
gilberts@thehastingscenter.org
845-424-4040 x 244

To interview Paul Appelbaum, contact:

Paul Appelbaum
Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine & Law
Columbia University Irving Medical Center
psa21@columbia.edu
646-774-8630

The Hastings Center

Related Genetic Testing Articles from Brightsurf:

Genetic testing cost effective for newly diagnosed GIST
UC San Diego School of Medicine researchers reported that genetic testing is cost-effective and beneficial for newly diagnosed patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), a rare type of cancer.

Genetic testing could improve screening for osteoporosis
An international team of scientists has developed a novel genetic measure that could dramatically improve how doctors assess the risk of sustaining a fracture due to osteoporosis or fragility

New recommendations on genetic testing for prostate cancer
Genetic testing for prostate cancer is still not common. New guidelines show why it's important, and which genes to test for.

For acute myeloid leukemia, genetic testing is often worth the wait
New tailored therapies offer exciting prospects for treating acute myeloid leukemia (AML), but taking advantage of them may require waiting a week or more for genetic testing before starting treatment, posing a dilemma for doctors and patients facing this deadly and often fast-moving disease.

Genetic testing among individuals with ASD
Professional medical societies recommend certain genetic tests for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

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.

Read More: Genetic Testing News and Genetic Testing Current Events
Brightsurf.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.