Geneticists, lawyers, students and industry experts packed into a conference room on Stanford’s campus this week to discuss the ethics behind the FDA’s decision to effectively shut down the health assessment element of the world’s leading direct-to-consumer genome analyzer, 23andMe.
At the heart of the Stanford roundtable was whether there is harm in people being given health information that isn’t 100 percent certain and, consequently, whether the benefits of releasing genome analyses to people without medical savvy outweigh the costs of them misunderstanding that information.
Greely summed it up this way: “To what extent do you hold back people who can make safe use of the information from some of the people who can’t?”
Read the full, original story: Should the FDA Take a More Libertarian Stance Towards Personal Genomics?
