ASHG Takes on Genetic Ancestry Tests
Posted by Osagie K. Obasogie June 9, 2010
Biopolitical Times
Personal genomics are in the spotlight like never before. However, one recent development that did not receive much attention is a new white paper on genetic ancestry tests written by a taskforce assembled by the American Society of Human Genetics. The article, published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, raises significant questions about the burgeoning industry surrounding genetic ancestry tests.
As I discuss in Chapter 2 of Playing The Gene Card?, genetic technologies are useful in identifying markers that may point to ancestral differences between large populations. However, genetic ancestry testing companies take this approach a few steps further by developing methods that identify markers that can supposedly tell individuals their particular ancestral background. The ASHG report discusses the problems in making this leap from groups to individuals and, moreover, these tests' accuracy in general. The white paper concludes by saying:
As I discuss in Chapter 2 of Playing The Gene Card?, genetic technologies are useful in identifying markers that may point to ancestral differences between large populations. However, genetic ancestry testing companies take this approach a few steps further by developing methods that identify markers that can supposedly tell individuals their particular ancestral background. The ASHG report discusses the problems in making this leap from groups to individuals and, moreover, these tests' accuracy in general. The white paper concludes by saying:
Concerns about analytical procedures, interpretation, and the personal and social implications of genetic ancestry inference make it clear that enormous care is required in the application of ancestry estimation in both research and commercial settings. A major issue regarding commercial ancestry testing is that there is no quality assurance guarantee. This gives rise to the question of whether there is a need for lab certification or accreditation. We tend to lean against anything so formal because it would provide a stamp of approval by any designated accrediting body. It is one thing to certify accuracy of the genotyping procedures, but it might not be very useful to do that and also claim that the inferences from the data are not validated or certified in any way. Determination of feasibility or of mechanisms for certification and validation, as well as specific approaches for enhancing consumer understanding of the scientific and nonscientific issues, will require thoughtful deliberation beyond the scope of work of this task force.
Previously on Biopolitical Times: