Genetics for public health: A lost cause?

| January 26, 2017
Screen Shot at AM
This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

Your genes make you completely unique. But they also make you remarkably similar to a chimpanzee, a yeast cell and every other human being on the planet. Such are the mixed messages that come up when we try to describe the meaning of genetics. And that problem is just as pronounced for physicians and public health officials who try to reconcile the inherent individualism of genetics and the presumed potential for genetics to produce new health guidelines that apply to everyone.

The director of the Center for Disease Control’s Office of Public Health Genomics published an editorial in June 2016 speaking to the problem. “It is absolutely true that each of us is biologically unique. It makes sense that we should somehow use this uniqueness in disease prevention,” Muin Khoury wrote.

As is often the case when it comes to genetics, Khoury suggests we need more data or better-matched data to fix the problem:

Most genetic and non-genetic risk factors have a weak or moderate effect on the risk of common chronic disease. So stratification of disease risk based on known risk factors including genetics, leaves most people either “slightly above average or “slightly below average” risk (see figure). Even though no one is average, the evidence accumulated in relatively small studies makes it difficult to recommend different courses of action to preserve health for most people.

Discoveries in human genetics have become so individualized that there are limited findings that apply to all people. The cures for chronic, common diseases we anticipated have long been coming are rather lackluster. In fact, genetics has been most helpful at identifying (and sometimes treating) rare, orphan diseases. That is because, ironically, the common diseases we all get are affected by numerous genes and their myriad interactions.

Many of the studies looking for public health level guidelines with genetics just fall short. For example, this large study on the genetic versus lifestyle impacts for developing Type 2 diabetes pretty much regurgitated what doctors have already known and told patients for decades—lose weight to reduce risk. The study’s conclusion:

The relative effect of a T2D genetic risk score is greater in younger and leaner participants. However, this sub-group is at low absolute risk and would not be a logical target for preventive interventions. The high absolute risk associated with obesity at any level of genetic risk highlights the importance of universal rather than targeted approaches to lifestyle intervention.

diabetesThis begs the question, do we already know everything genetics will teach us about public health? And are the widely held guidelines that we’ve developed from people’s phenotypic health, about diet and exercise for example, always going to be more robust than those that emerge just looking at genetics?

Related article:  Erectile dysfunction? If you carry this gene, you have a 26% increased risk

One way to advance the issue is with more, but different data. A new study linked genetics to electronic health records for more than 50,000 people. The researchers found that about 3.5 percent of people had a genetic variant “for which screening or treatment already exists,” according to The Scientist:

This is new territory and I applaud [the authors] for their efforts. No one has taken this many individuals’ genomic sequences from one health system and tried to extract useful information, Eric Topol, the director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute who was not involved with the study.

This study, published in Science, only looked at conditions that have some available test or treatment. Those are called ‘actionable.’ And they may provide some benefit to those patients. For example, the study screened for familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). People with FH gene variants have genetically driven high levels of bad cholesterol. There are new drugs and lifestyle changes to treat FH. If a patient’s sequencing identified one of these variants, they could access these treatments.

On the other hand, Khoury’s editorial and these large studies also show how difficult it is to guide patients for individualized, genetically tailored health guidelines. There is simply not enough data to say people with a certain cluster of variants should or shouldn’t eat salt or drink coffee. Outside of small observational studies, none of these individualized guidelines has been tested in a big enough study to prove their effectiveness. Consumers are right to be suspicious.

So is public health barking up the wrong tree when it comes to genetics? And have the millions of dollars spent on those studies been wasted? The field thinks not. Obama doubled down with the Precision Medicine Initiative. Related fields like immunotherapy are thriving. But it might be time to admit that far fewer people will benefit from genetics and related therapies than we expected.

Meredith Knight is a frequent contributor to the Genetic Literacy Project and a freelance science and health journalist in Austin, Texas. Follow her @meremereknight

The GLP featured this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. The viewpoint is the author’s own. The GLP’s goal is to stimulate constructive discourse on challenging science issues.

Outbreak Daily Digest
Biotech Facts & Fallacies
Talking Biotech
Genetics Unzipped
a a b b a f ac a

Video: Death by COVID: The projected grim toll in historical context

The latest statistics, as of July 10, show COVID-19-related deaths in U.S. are just under 1,000 per day nationally, which is ...
mag insects image superjumbo v

Disaster interrupted: Which farming system better preserves insect populations: Organic or conventional?

A three-year run of fragmentary Armageddon-like studies had primed the journalism pumps and settled the media framing about the future ...
dead bee desolate city

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’

The media call it the “Insect Apocalypse”. In the past three years, the phrase has become an accepted truth of ...
types of oak trees

Infographic: Power of evolution? How oak trees came to dominate North American forests

Over the course of some 56 million years, oaks, which all belong to the genus Quercus, evolved from a single undifferentiated ...
biotechnology worker x

Can GMOs rescue threatened plants and crops?

Some scientists and ecologists argue that humans are in the midst of an "extinction crisis" — the sixth wave of ...
food globe x

Are GMOs necessary to feed the world?

Experts estimate that agricultural production needs to roughly double in the coming decades. How can that be achieved? ...
eating gmo corn on the cob x

Are GMOs safe?

In 2015, 15 scientists and activists issued a statement, "No Scientific consensus on GMO safety," in the journal Environmental Sciences ...
Screen Shot at PM

Charles Benbrook: Agricultural economist and consultant for the organic industry and anti-biotechnology advocacy groups

Independent scientists rip Benbrook's co-authored commentary in New England Journal calling for reassessment of dangers of all GMO crops and herbicides ...
Screen Shot at PM

ETC Group: ‘Extreme’ biotechnology critic campaigns against synthetic biology and other forms of ‘extreme genetic engineering’

The ETC Group is an international environmental non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Canada whose stated purpose is to monitor "the impact of emerging technologies and ...
Share via
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend