Knowing what the future holds might simply mean to look in the genes and see what risks we carry in our DNA and deal with them as soon as possible. And if this is a way to secure a better life for next generations, then it should be tried, at least according to parents in the United States.
Even if there is a small risk of hereditary cancer, cardiovascular disease or Alzheimer’s disease, just using a small amount of blood or saliva, a technology called whole genome sequencing could offer an answer early enough. So more than half of parents said they’d not only be interested in the technology for themselves but for their children too, a new nationally-representative University of Michigan study shows.
“As genome sequencing becomes faster and cheaper, we expect the technology to become used more frequently in clinics and the private market. We wanted to know what kind of factors influenced patient demand for this test, especially among parents,” says senior author Beth Tarini from University of Michigan’s C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital and researcher at the Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit.
“Particularly fascinating was that parents’ interest for having predictive genetic testing done for themselves reflected their interest in testing their children too – it appears to be a global decision for the family,” he added.
The findings show that 59 percent of the total population, including both parents and non-parents, were interested in genome sequencing, with nearly 62 percent of parents saying they’d be interested in the complete DNA read for themselves and 58 percent for their children. A greater interest in genome sequencing was found among adults that are planning to have a child in the next five years.
Whole genome sequencing is currently most commonly used to find a medical cause for patients who already have symptoms for an undiagnosed health condition, but it could be used to examine a person’s DNA makeup in order to provide information about the risk for developing diseases in the future. However, there is still concern for how accurately the information would be interpreted.
“First, interpreting the data is challenging because we are not sure what all of the data means. Second, even if you can interpret the data then you may not know what to do with the interpretation. Perhaps you learn you have a slightly higher risk of getting prostate cancer or diabetes – neither of which is for certain or in the near future. Now what?”
Another aspect is the privacy of the results because parents may want to deal with their children’s future health problems, but the decisions could be deferred until the child is old enough to participate in them.
The findings appear in this month’s issue of Public Health Genomics.