When the scientific debate over personal genetic services got a little heated in March, scientists at Navigenics decided to weigh in with our own perspective. Our response is now in print—and the conversation continues.
This particular debate started when prominent federal and international scientists published an article in the American Journal of Human Genetics, criticizing the personalized genetics industry. The study’s authors discussed a number of personal genomics companies, and mentioned Navigenics briefly. The bulk of the study, however, focused on the genetic associations used by seven other personalized genetics companies – a lineup that did not include Navigenics – and found weaknesses in their scientific underpinnings. The researchers further claimed that there isn’t enough scientific evidence to make genomic profiles useful in measuring common disease risk or developing steps for disease prevention.
Scientists at Navigenics read the study, and wanted to set the record straight.
We follow high scientific standards, and wanted to make the point that not all companies in our industry should be categorized the same way. We submitted a response to the study. The journal, which applies strict editorial guidelines to the content it considers, reviewed our submission and decided it met their standards for inclusion.
Led by our chief science officer and company co-founder Dietrich Stephan, Navigenics scientists replied that Navigenics takes a responsible approach to the evaluation of genetic health risk:
- We base our service only on high-quality studies that have been replicated in repeated scientific analyses.
- We clearly outline prevention strategies that may be undertaken to reduce genetic risk.
- We provide customers with one-on-one access to certified Genetic Counselors.
- “Taking a responsible approach means that companies utilize only high-quality association studies to bring customers accurate genetic risk predictions, as well as effective strategies for reducing risk for those genetic conditions to which they are predisposed,” we stated in our response.
Our response appears in this month’s edition of the American Journal of Human Genetics. (We should note that the full letter is viewable only by subscribers or those who choose to purchase individual journal articles.)
Because science is an ongoing discussion, the authors of the original study also published a response to our response. The authors said they “agree fully” that a responsible approach to personal genetics is warranted. But they also said that, in their view, effective use of personal genomic information requires further study.
We respect our scientific colleagues. But this is a point where we don’t agree. Navigenics is based on the idea that enough solid science exists to make personal genetic services a valid pursuit. We look forward to continuing this debate – and continuing to put the strong science behind our service into practice.
mooshka Jul 30, 2008
It’s good to see a generation of scientists that are concerned about what I call-"service delivery”—not just collecting the data and deciphering its meaning in a lab, but making it applied for use. In this information age, we see the medical establishment arguing ‘when’ can this genome research become meaningful to the everyday consumer, which is the future-patient, which can be me! What I am seeing/reading on this topic shows me that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. In other words, your team has established a goal, which to me can be summed up as “give the person actionable data,” not all-inclusive/irrelevant data, but data that can be meaningful NOW. Maybe tomorrow there will be more actionable data, or the dataset will get deeper and broader as time marches on.
But as long as there is a check for ‘relevance’ then this should be made available to the public. What a step in prevention medicine !! Kudos !!! And let the dialogue continue.