Abstract
“Genetic information” may refer to information about a person’s family history, raw DNA sequence data, or an interpretation derived from the raw data. This chapter addresses what counts as genetic information, especially about humans, and the limitations on what can be known.
Family history provides information relating to risk of disease without genetic testing. Genetic linkage studies provide information about the co-localization of a disease-related gene and a nearby marker on a chromosome. Tracking the marker can indicate whether someone has inherited the corresponding disorder. In contrast, association studies are performed on large populations and identify many dispersed genetic factors that influence the chance of developing complex diseases. Confidence in the accuracy of individual predictions based on linkage studies is often very high, while genetic association studies provide information that applies robustly to a population but not so readily to individuals. Further, predictions based on linkage analyses are open to improvement through the identification of errors, while such feedback is not feasible with polygenic scores applied to individuals from association studies.
The distinction between “raw data” and “information” is fuzzy: when does data become information? The high-throughput methods now in use require an interpretive step based upon sequence information and an accumulated body of knowledge from other individuals of known phenotype in order to draw any useful conclusions from a person’s genetic constitution. Some variants will be assessed as of Uncertain Significance (VUSs). This raises the question of future reanalyses and reinterpretations of such VUSs or genome sequence data in general. In addition, unsought information may be found concerning risks of other diseases or of misattributed relationships within a family.
Developments in DNA sequencing have led to an explosion in genome sequence data. Ownership of individuals’ DNA sequence is probably an unhelpful concept, but access to such information and control of how it is applied is important and may be subject to legislation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Chadwick R (1997) The philosophy of the right to know and the right not to know. In: Chadwick R, Levitt M, Shickle D (eds) The right to know and the right not to know. Ashgate, Aldershot/Brookfield, pp 13–22
Clarke AJ (2014) Managing the ethical challenges of next generation sequencing in genomic medicine. Br Med Bull 111(1):17–30
Dove ES, Chico V, Fay M et al (2019) Familial genetic risks: how can we better navigate patient confidentiality and appropriate risk disclosure to relatives? J Med Ethics 45:504–507
Ernst Z (2008) Philosophical issues arising from genomics. In: Ruse M (ed) The Oxford handbook of philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 310–326
Evans JA, Foster JG (2011) Metaknowledge. Science 331:721–725
Forrest K, Simpson SA, Wilson BJ, van Teijlingen ER, McKee L, Haites N, Matthews E (2003) To tell or not to tell: barriers and facilitators in family communication about genetic risk. Clin Genet 64:317–326
Gilmore RB, Liu Y, Stoddard CE, Chung MS, Carmichael GG, Cotney J (2023) Identifying key underlying regulatory networks and predicting targets of orphan C/D box SNORD116 snoRNAs in Prader-Willi syndrome. bioRxiv 2023 Oct 5:2023.10.03.560773. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.10.03.560773
Han PKJ (2013) Conceptual, methodological, and ethical problems in communicating uncertainty in clinical evidence. Med Care Res Rev 70(1 Suppl):14S–36S
Han PKJ, Umstead KL, Bernhardt BA, Green RC, Joffe S, Koenig B, Krantz I, Waterston LB, Biesecker LG, Biesecker BB (2017) A taxonomy of medical uncertainties in clinical genome sequencing. Genet Med 19(8):918–925
Husted J (1997) Chapter 6. Autonomy and a right not to know. In: Chadwick R, Levitt M, Shickle D (eds) The right to know and the right not to know. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot/Brookfield, pp 55–68
Jensson BO, Arnadottir GA, Katrinardottir H et al (2023) Actionable genotypes and their association with life span in Iceland. New Eng J Med 389(19):1741–1752
Kalia SS, Adelman K, Bale SJ, Chung WK, Eng C, Evans JP, Herman GE, Hufnagel SB, Klein TE, Korf BR, KD MK, Ormond KE, Richards CS, Vlangos CN, Watson M, Martin CL, Miller DT, on behalf of the ACMG Secondary Findings Maintenance Working Group (2017) Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 19(2):249–255
Kesselheim AS, Cook-Deegan RM, Winickoff DE, Mello MM (2013) Gene patenting – the Supreme Court finally speaks. N Engl J Med 369:869–875
Mackenzie R (1999) Chapter 13. Paradigms of author/creator property rights in intellectual property law. In: Thompson AK, Chadwick RF (eds) Genetic information: acquisition, access and control. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp 139–148
Macklin R (1999) The ethics of gene patenting. In: Thompson AK, Chadwick RF (eds) Genetic information: acquisition, access and control. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp 129–137
Malin B, Loukides G, Benitez K, Clayton EW (2011) Identifiability in biobanks: models, measures, and mitigation. Hum Genet 130(3):383–392
Manson N, O’Neill O (2007) Rethinking informed consent in bioethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Newson AJ, Leonard SJ, Hall A, Gaff CL (2016) Known unknowns: building an ethics of uncertainty into genomic medicine. BMC Med Genet 9:57. (pages 1–8)
Parker M, Lucassen AM (2004) Genetic information: a joint account? BMJ 329:165–167
Raab R, Küderle A, Zakreuskaya A, Stern AD, Klucken J, Kaissis G, Rueckert D, Boll S, Eils R, Wagener H, Eskofier BM (2023) Federated electronic health records for the European Health Data Space. Lancet Digit Health 5:e840–e847
Ritchie MD, Holzinger ER, Li R, Pendergrass SA, Kim D (2015) Methods of integrating data to uncover genotype-phenotype interactions. Nat Rev Genet 16:85–97
Savulescu J, Kahane G (2009) The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics 23:274–290
Tymstra T (2009) ‘If only I had (not) known that’: about risk-individualization, chance specification and the loss of certainty of not-knowing. In: Rehmann-Sutter C, Müller HJ (eds) Disclosure dilemmas. Ethics of genetic prognosis after the ‘right to know/not to know’ debate. Ashgate, Farnham/Burlington, pp 85–95
Wray NR, Yang J, Hayes BJ, Price AL, Goddard ME, Visscher PM (2013) Pitfalls of predicting complex traits from SNPs. Nat Rev Genet 14:507–515
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 Springer Nature B.V.
About this entry
Cite this entry
Livesey, H., Clarke, A. (2024). Genetic Information in Medicine: Its Generation, Significance, and Use. In: Schramme, T., Walker, M. (eds) Handbook of the Philosophy of Medicine. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8706-2_13-2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8706-2_13-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-8706-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-8706-2
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities
Publish with us
Chapter history
-
Latest
Genetic Information in Medicine: Its Generation, Significance, and Use- Published:
- 16 April 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8706-2_13-2
-
Original
Genetic Information in Medicine: Its Generation, Significance, and Use- Published:
- 03 May 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8706-2_13-1