Slashdot Mirror


Genetic Testing Coming To a Drugstore Near You

Hugh Pickens writes "The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Walgreens is slated to begin selling genetic-testing kits priced from $20 to $30 apiece that can tell people whether they're likely to get breast cancer, Alzheimer's disease, become obese, or suffer from a range of other maladies. However, to get the results of various tests, shoppers will have to fork over an additional $79 for drug-response results, $179 for 'pre-pregnancy planning' results, $179 for health condition results, or $249 for a combination of the three. Pathway Genomics and other companies already offer such tests online, but Walgreens will be the first brick-and-mortar retailer to sell them. FDA spokeswoman Karen Riley says Pathway overstepped its bounds when it announced its plans to market the tests directly to the consumer at 6,000 of Walgreen's 7,500 stores and wants Pathway Genomics to submit data showing that its tests give accurate results. 'The claims have limitations based on existing science,' says Riley, 'and consumers should not be making important medical and lifestyle decisions based on these tests without first consulting a health-care professional.' Walgreen responded that FDA clearance is not required to sell the kit in its stores; and anyway, the drugstore chain already sells other diagnostic and testing products such as pregnancy tests, paternity tests, and drug tests."

7 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. Pathway Genomics Agreement by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here's some required reading if you are contemplating this. Most importantly:

    5. Services Limitations. The Services provided by Pathway Genomics are solely for research and educational purposes and uses. Although based on scientific research, the Services, including all information about genetic findings and probabilities, have not been fully validated and shall not be relied upon by you or any other person to diagnose, treat or prevent any disease or health condition. You should consult with a physician or other appropriate health care professional regarding the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of any disease or health condition.

    Emphasis mine. I knew that'd be in there along with point 13 (the indemnity clause). On the plus side they've got this:

    9. Proprietary Rights. You own all Genetic Information derived from your saliva or other biological material. Genetic Information means the As, Ts, Cs, and Gs at particular locations in your genome.

    If you submit or post content on the Pathway Genomics website or otherwise using the Services, (a) you retain any copyright rights that you hold in this content, and (b) you grant Pathway Genomics a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide license to copy, modify, translate, publicly display and distribute this content. This license grants Pathway Genomics the right to use this content to provide the Services and to provide this content to other companies and individuals affiliated with Pathway Genomics. You warrant to Pathway Genomics that you have the right, power and authority to grant this license.

    Of course we all would think that would go without saying but you never know these days and in bullet 12 they follow that up with you have permission to send them this sample. I shudder to think that someone might grab some of their significant other's saliva in order to see what their genetic tests reveal and call the whole thing off based on the fact that their offspring would have a 5% higher chance of getting breast cancer according to The Super Deluxe Cancer Finder 3000.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Pathway Genomics Agreement by ledow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the biggest problem with your last comment is that it should be a good thing... if you are with someone "significant" who calls the whole thing off because of things like that, then you're much, much better off without them, surely? More dangerous would be something like you sending off a workmate's saliva to see if they have HIV and then using that information to force them out of a job, etc. That's the sort of casual mis-use that we *don't* need.

    2. Re:Pathway Genomics Agreement by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Informative

      HIV can be transmitted by saliva, but the virus isn't typically concentrated there to the same degree as sexual fluids, or the bloodstream. Anecdotally (from my Biology teacher at school), it was guessed at around one litre of saliva would have to be ingested to pose a serious risk of infection.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  2. Re:What's the point? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They gypsy certainly has better applied psych skills; but, for a great many genetic(or suspected but not yet fully elucidated) conditions, there is a way that is cheaper and more effective.

    Family history.

    With the exception of (not-nonexistent; but quite rare) conditions caused by a mutation or mutations that originated with you, not earlier in the line, or a fairly small number of well developed genetic tests, most of which you aren't going to get over the counter at CVS, you'll have a better chance of learning about the likely phenotypic consequences of your genes by looking at mommy and daddy, keeping their environment in mind(daddy's lung cancer probably doesn't count as "family history" if he was a chain-smoking asbestos miner, it probably does if he wasn't).

    DNA sequencing has, certainly, gotten cheap enough that you might actually get a fairly accurate reading of a subset of your genome for a hundred bucks through the mail. However, I'd be quite surprised if, when it comes to predicting the consequences, which are what people actually care about, the method is going to outperform just looking at family history. In a lot of cases, the science simply isn't settled, at any price. Even where it is, you are going to be getting some mail merge algorithm, not a geneticist, or even a genetic counselor, for your hundred bucks.

  3. Re:The FDA is the one overstepping its bounds by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is just a diagnostics test. It won't kill anyone.

    Hopefully you'll never be in the market for a blood sugar test kit.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  4. HIV is Not a Genetically Inherited Disease! by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More dangerous would be something like you sending off a workmate's saliva to see if they have HIV and then using that information to force them out of a job, etc. That's the sort of casual mis-use that we *don't* need.

    Why would you use a genetics test to test for HIV? While you can now test for HIV with saliva, Pathway Genomics does not check for HIV as it's not a genetically inherited disease. It can be passed from mother to offspring prior to or during birth but it's not inherit to the genetic material. These tests at Walgreens are not to check for HIV or AIDS.

    if you are with someone "significant" who calls the whole thing off because of things like that, then you're much, much better off without them, surely?

    Depends, relationships are all about compromise. You meet the perfect someone but they're a hypochondriac when it comes to cancer. Oh well, you can work past that until they get their hands on this test and demand you take it or, like I said, send in your sample without your consent. No one's perfect. Someone worrying now about their offspring's future is not a bad thing. The bad thing is proceeding without consent. Your fears, however, make absolutely no sense.

    Someone with a genetically inherited disease working next to you does not pose a risk unless you plan on them becoming your father or mother.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  5. This is BS Voodoo by quixote9 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Scientists don't know yet which genes in which combinations cause Alzheimers or heart disease or cancer. (Trust me. This type of thing was my job.) All scientists know at this point is a few genes which are associated with chronic diseases.

    You'd have a better chance of a true prediction of your fate using astrology. We don't know enough to make a yes/no test for those diseases. We do know enough to make a yes/no test for pregnancy or drugs. (Actually, not always on the latter. Don't eat any poppy seed buns the day before.)

    The difference between a drugstore test and a doctor's is that there is some chance the doctor will be aware of the complexity, of what the testing cannot do, and of how much it really means for your future.

    The drugstore test is just a way to take your money.