The development of classroom experiments where students examine their own DNA is frequently described as an innovative teaching practice. Often these experiences involve students analyzing their genes for various polymorphisms associated with disease states, like an increased risk for developing cancer. Such experiments can muddy the distinction between classroom investigation and medical testing. Although the goals and issues surrounding classroom genotyping do not directly align with those of clinical testing, instructors can use the guidelines and standards established by the medical genetics community when evaluating the ethics of human genotyping. We developed a laboratory investigation and discussion which allowed undergraduate science students to explore current DNA manipulation techniques to isolate their p53 gene, followed by a dialogue probing the ethical implications of examining their sample for various polymorphisms. Students never conducted genotyping on their samples because of the ethical concerns presented in this paper, so the discussion replaced the actual genetic testing in the class. A science faculty member led the laboratory portion, while a genetic counselor facilitated the discussion of the ethical concepts underlying genetic counseling: autonomy, beneficence, confidentiality, and justice. In their final papers, students demonstrated an understanding of the practice guidelines established by the genetics community and acknowledged the ethical considerations inherent in p53 genotyping. Given the burgeoning market for personalized medicine, teaching undergraduates about the psychosocial and ethical dimensions of human genetic testing is important and timely. Moreover, incorporating a genetic counselor in the classroom discussion provided a rich and dynamic discussion of human genetic testing.

Case reports References Bass HN, Sparkes RS. Two balanced translocations in three generations of a pedigree.

Educating undergraduates about current genetic testing and genomics can involve novel and creative teaching practices. The higher education literature describes numerous pedagogical approaches in the laboratory designed to engage science and liberal arts students. Often these experiences involve students analyzing their own genes for various polymorphisms, some of which are associated with disease states such as an increased risk for developing cancer. While the literature acknowledges possible ethical ramifications of such laboratory exercises, authors do not present recommendations or rubrics for evaluating whether or not the testing is, in fact, ethical. In response, we developed a laboratory investigation and discussion which allowed undergraduate science students to explore current DNA manipulation techniques to isolate their p53 gene, followed by a dialogue probing the ethical implications of examining their sample for various polymorphisms. Students never conducted genotyping on their samples because of ethical concerns, so the discussion served to replace actual genetic testing in the class. A basic scientist led the laboratory portion of the assignment. A genetic counselor facilitated the discussion, which centered around existing ethical guidelines for clinical genetic testing and possible challenges of human genotyping outside the medical setting. In their final papers, students demonstrated an understanding of the practice guidelines established by the genetics community and acknowledged the ethical considerations inherent in p53 genotyping. Given the burgeoning market for personalized medicine, teaching undergraduates about the psychosocial and ethical dimensions of human gene testing seems important and timely, and introduces an additional role genetic counselors can play in educating consumers about genomics.

No abstract

INTRODUC~ONA 25-year-old primigravida was referred to us for further evaluation following a maternal serum alpha fetoprotein (MSAFP) level of 5.08 MoM. A three generation family history was negative for spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, and infants with congenital anomalies. Gestational age had been determined prior to MSAFP testing by an ultrasound exam at 10.3 weeks

We describe a family carrying a balanced 4; 11 translocation in which both adjacent‐1 segregants are viable. The proband had an unbalanced karyotype: 46,XY,der(11)t(4;11)(q34.3;q23.1)mat. At 8.5 years of age he showed trigonocephaly, hypertelorism, epicanthal folds, down‐slanting palpebral fissures, low‐set ears, anteverted nares, down‐turned carp‐shaped mouth, and bilateral fifth finger clinodactyly. His maternal aunt was also dysmorphic with high‐arched palate, short philtrum and mild developmental delay. Her karyotype was 46,XX,der(4)t(4;11)‐(q34.3;q23.1)pat. Other relatives who likely carried a chromosomally unbalanced segregant were identified from photographs and medical records. We compare the clinical findings in our family with descriptions of other similar karyotypic abnormalities from previous case reports.