The ethical implications of genetic testing in the classroom

Abstract

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.

An Effective Approach to Teaching Pharmacogenomics in the First Year of Pharmacy Curriculum

“…30 Educational approaches include didactic lectures, 31 clinical exercises and online resources, 32 personal genomic sequencing, 33 laboratory exercises 34 and bionformatics, 35 flipping content, 36 shortanswer problem solving, 31 medical literature review, 31 experiential activities, 37 and medical evidence review, among others. Some pharmacy schools have tried implementing students' personal genetic sequencing, 33 but this approach could be controversial, 38 and risks failing the four pillars of genetic counseling (autonomy, confidentiality, beneficence, and justice). 39 In this study, students were exposed to different topics such as patient stratification based on genetic background and involving predicting responders and non-responders, or those with higher or lower risks of developing an adverse effect, discussion of ethical issues and barriers to implementation of genetic testing such as electronic health record or GINA.…”

Swabbing Students: Should Universities Be Allowed to Facilitate Educational DNA Testing?

“…Although UC Berkeley has made educational DNA testing headline news, it is by no means the first and only school to facilitate personalized genetic testing for educational purposes (Taylor and Rogers 2011). In their recent scholarship, Rogers and Taylor (2011) explain that undergraduate institutions often include student genotyping within a classroom context.…”

“…And in the past 2 years, university educators have published articles describing their use of genetic testing laboratories on and off-campus to genotype science, pharmacy, and medical students. Collectively, these reports show that institutions are combining the conventional concept of experiential learning with genetic testing technologies that have been increasingly raising questions about the safety and effectiveness of genetic tests (Anonymous 2010; Burke and Evans 2011; Rogers and Taylor 2011; Salari et al 2011; Taylor and Rogers 2011; Walt et al 2011). The article here builds on concerns raised about student vulnerability (OHRP 1993), exploitation (Burke and Evans 2011), coercion (Taylor and Rogers 2011; Rogers and Taylor 2011), and the lack of proven clinical validity and utility associated with some genetic tests (Burke and Evans 2011).…”

Case-Study Investigation of Equine Maternity via PCR-RFLP: A Biochemistry Laboratory Experiment

“…Additionally, the use of horse samples rather than human ones minimizes amplification of contaminating DNA, reduces the risk of human pathogens, and avoids ethical concerns that arise when students test their own DNA. 29 …”