Regulation of Internet-based Genetic Testing: Challenges for Australia and Other Jurisdictions

Abstract

The Internet currently enables unprecedented ease of access for direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing, with saliva collection kits posted directly to consumer homes from anywhere in the world. This poses new challenges for local jurisdictions in regulating genetic testing, traditionally a tightly-regulated industry. Some Internet-based genetic tests have the capacity to cause significant confusion or harm to consumers who are unaware of the risks or potential variability in quality. The emergence of some online products of questionable content, unsupported by adequate scientific evidence, is a cause for concern. Proliferation of such products in the absence of regulation has the potential to damage public trust in accredited and established clinical genetic testing during a critical period of evidence generation for genomics. Here, we explore the challenges arising from the emergence of Internet-based DTC genetic testing. In particular, there are challenges in regulating unaccredited or potentially harmful Internet-based DTC genetic testing products. In Australia, challenges exist for the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which oversees regulation of the genetic testing sector. Concerns and challenges faced in Australia are likely to reflect those of other comparable non-US jurisdictions. Here, we summarize current Australian regulation, highlight concerns, and offer recommendations on how Australia and other comparable jurisdictions might be more proactive in addressing this emerging public health issue.

A future for the world's children? A WHO–UNICEF–Lancet Commission

“…These concerns frequently intersect (eg, when unregulated commercial activity around internetbased genetic testing erodes public trust in government programmes developed using more rigorous scientific methods). 287 Within the confines of government programmes, child centreddata raises both promising avenues and reasons to worry. For example, predictive risk modelling has been embraced both as a powerful tool for preventing and detecting child abuse, and criticised for individualising social problems and reifying oppressive frameworks of risk and abuse.…”

Genetics, Insurance and Professional Practice: Survey of the Australasian Clinical Genetics Workforce

“…In Australasia 1 however, life insurance companies can require applicants to disclose any results of genetic testing known to the applicant. This includes genetic results from clinical testing as well as research and online, direct-to-consumer genetic tests ( 4 ). Insurers can then use that information, with other health and lifestyle information, in making underwriting decisions.…”

Impute.me: An Open-Source, Non-profit Tool for Using Data From Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing to Calculate and Interpret Polygenic Risk Scores

“…Given that for most complex disorders there is currently a lack of data regarding the harms or benefits of accessing PRS information, the fundamental principle in favor of making PRSs available to the public is that of autonomy—in the context of genetic testing, this refers to “the right of persons to make an informed, independent judgment about whether they wish to be tested and then whether they wish to know the details of the outcome of the testing” ( Andrews et al, 1994 ). Accordingly, currently, DTC users can access health information through portals of DTC providers and through third-party applications ( Kalokairinou et al, 2018 ; Tiller and Lacaze, 2018 ; Ahmed and Shabani, 2019 ). The problem is that many popular websites do not communicate high-quality genetic knowledge, in part possibly owing to the lack of engagement by the research communities ( Badalato et al, 2017 ).…”