Pitfalls of Genetic Testing - by Alina Bishop
Although Hubbard and Lewontin do make some logical arguments against the actual practical value of genetic testing, I feel as though they are lacking in their argument in that they are not considering thinking of the future and the lives ahead. It is one thing to say that “DNA tests cannot usually help clinicians or benefit patients,” (emphasis on the “usually”), but it is an entirely different thing to then disregard any possible benefits of such testing. The word “usually” is important here in that it indicates that there are, at times, cases in which the genetic testing would be useful. For example: regarding breast cancer, just because there are no existing methods for prevention/treatment does not mean that there are no possible methods yet to be determined that may end up working in the future. This goes to say that the genetic testing would, in fact, be beneficial – if a woman were able to find out she has a predisposition to having breast cancer, then she would be able to live in such a way so as to take the best preventative measures against the disease. I am aware that the recommendations for prevention tactics against cancer do vary widely and there are no concrete links to their aid against cancer; yet despite these uncertainties, it can not hurt to try different methods of prevention, as the ultimate outcome could be a positive one. Therefore, by knowing that you are predisposed to a disease, you have the option to take advantage of that knowledge and work accordingly to live in a way to best ward off the disease. A more definite example would be one regarding a disease such as heart disease. To find out that you have a genetic predisposition to heart disease would then prove to you that you should stay away from high-cholesterol foods, for example, and you could then be able to live your life in such a way so as to try to prevent the occurrence of the disease.
To make their argument valid, it is no longer appropriate for them to say that such DNA tests are useless. They need to look to the future to see the long-term and preventative benefits that could come with the testing. Although it may be true that it is not currently possible to directly link genetics to the presence of a certain disease or health problem, there may be a point in time when this is possible, so it should not be disregarded. To get the link between genes and diseases down to a precise and calculated measure will take a lot of time and research, and just because there may not be a instant “perk” to such testing immediately, it is possible for the testing to be beneficial in the future. In order to reach that point, the current testing needs to continue to take place and advance towards that ultimate goal.
To make their argument valid, it is no longer appropriate for them to say that such DNA tests are useless. They need to look to the future to see the long-term and preventative benefits that could come with the testing. Although it may be true that it is not currently possible to directly link genetics to the presence of a certain disease or health problem, there may be a point in time when this is possible, so it should not be disregarded. To get the link between genes and diseases down to a precise and calculated measure will take a lot of time and research, and just because there may not be a instant “perk” to such testing immediately, it is possible for the testing to be beneficial in the future. In order to reach that point, the current testing needs to continue to take place and advance towards that ultimate goal.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home