Some state‐based newborn screening programs in the United States already use sequencing technology, as a secondary screening test for individual conditions rather than as a broad screening tool. Newborn screening programs sequence an individual gene, such as the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator, which causes cystic fibrosis, after an initial biochemical test suggests that a baby might have a condition related to that gene. The experiences of state public health departments with individual‐gene sequencing illustrate both the usefulness of the technology (...) and its complexities. Here I discuss how newborn screening programs investigate cystic fibrosis and, as another example, adrenoleukodystrophy through individual gene sequencing. (shrink)

As new parents quickly learn, parenting always involves choosing your battles. Ideally, parents have the freedom to make those moral choices without the prejudice of an unreasonable or premature inflicted ought. Resolving the predictive uncertainties of genomic information is the professional responsibility of the biomedical community, just as clarifying the impact of global warming or assessing the risks of rising multidrug resistance is the responsibility of similar specialists. Until sequencing can give parents clear and meaningful information that they can use (...) to protect their children without also burdening parents with uncertain findings about which little if anything can be done, it makes no sense to impute an obligation for them to seek it out. To do so not only increases the mental and emotional burden on parents but also distorts the scope of parental responsibility in ways that undermine parents’ capacity to play their immediate role as the nurturers of a new life. (shrink)

As next‐generation genomic sequencing, including whole‐genome sequencing information, becomes more common in research, clinical, and public health contexts, there is a need for comprehensive communication strategies and education approaches to prepare patients and clinicians to manage this information and make informed decisions about its use, and nowhere is that imperative more pronounced than when genomic sequencing is applied to newborns. Unfortunately, in‐person counseling is unlikely to be applicable or cost‐effective when parents obtain genomic risk information directly via the Internet. As (...) a rule, communication strategies should match how people are accessing health information. Today, many people can obtain health information in a variety of settings, including through direct‐to‐consumer services, via websites, and through other digital channels or settings. In response to these changes, new communication strategies need to be considered. Adopting a comprehensive communication model means understanding the multiple levels of influence experienced by parents and the clinicians who serve them. In addition, applying communication‐science principles can help in addressing some key challenges to effectively communicating genomic information to parents. (shrink)

I attended the NSIGHT Ethics and Policy Advisory Board's meeting on sequencing newborns as a research associate in a joint apprenticeship between the University of California, San Francisco, Institute for Human Genetics and the university's Program in Bioethics. But I also came to the meeting with a deeply personal perspective: I had spent nearly my entire childhood in search of a diagnosis and therefore was eager to hear the board's discussion on how to ethically include genomic sequencing early in life. (...) Genomic sequencing in the newborn period could have helped me avoid my diagnostic odyssey by revealing the cause of my condition shortly after birth. (shrink)

In recent years, as newborn screening has expanded to include conditions for which treatment is questionable, new rationales for screening have proliferated. One such rationale is the potential reproductive benefit to parents from the detection of a genetic condition or carrier status in infants. An unanticipated consequence of invoking knowledge of reproductive risk as a major benefit of screening has been to open newborn screening to the charge that it constitutes state‐sanctioned eugenics. Thus, an endeavor that had been viewed as (...) the converse of state programs of selective breeding has come to be seen in some quarters as yet another of its incarnations. The result has been serious and self‐inflected harm to the reputation of newborn screening programs. (shrink)

The possible integration of genomic sequencing (including whole‐genome and whole‐exome sequencing) into the three contexts addressed in this special report—state‐mandated screening programs, clinical care, and direct‐to‐consumer services—raises related but distinct legal issues. This essay will outline the legal issues surrounding the integration of genomic sequencing into state newborn screening programs, parental rights to refuse and access sequencing for their newborns in clinical and direct‐to‐consumer care, and privacy‐related legal issues attending the use of sequencing in newborns.

While the NSIGHT program was driven by a desire to define and gather data about both the benefits and harms of introducing genomic sequencing into the care of newborns, it remains to be seen how much influence these data will have in shaping the use of this technology in newborns. Ultimately, three additional forces—commercial interests, the technological imperative, and advocates—may play a significant role in shaping the use of sequencing in newborns. Policy‐makers and clinicians should be aware of the effects (...) of these additional forces when considering the appropriate use of this technology in clinical practice and public health screening programs. (shrink)

Massively parallel sequencing, also known as next‐generation sequencing, has the potential to significantly improve newborn screening programs in the United States and around the world. Compared to genetic tests whose use is well established, sequencing allows for the analysis of large amounts of DNA, providing more comprehensive and rapid results at a lower cost. It is already being used in limited ways by some public health newborn screening laboratories in the United States and other countries—and it is under study for (...) broader and more widespread use, including as a core part of newborn screening programs. Sequencing technology has the potential to significantly improve these essential public health programs. For many of the conditions that newborns are already screened for, sequencing can return more specific and more sensitive results. The technology could also enable newborn screening programs to expand the list of rare pediatric conditions that they look for, thereby identifying more infants who can benefit from immediate care. (shrink)

Since the late 1980s, the human genetics and genomics research community has been promising to usher in a “new paradigm for health care”—one that uses molecular profiling to identify human genetic variants implicated in multifactorial health risks. After the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, a wide range of stakeholders became committed to this “paradigm shift,” creating a confluence of investment, advocacy, and enthusiasm that bears all the marks of a “scientific/intellectual social movement” within biomedicine. Proponents of this (...) movement usually offer four ways in which their approach to medical diagnosis and health care improves upon current practices, arguing that it is more “personalized,” “predictive,” “preventive,” and “participatory” than the medical status quo. Initially, it was personalization that seemed to best sum up the movement's appeal. By 2012, however, powerful opinion leaders were abandoning “personalized medicine” in favor of a new label: “precision medicine.” The new label received a decisive seal of approval when, in January 2015, President Obama unveiled plans for a national “precision medicine initiative” to promote the development and use of genomic tools in health care. (shrink)

A decade after the completion of the Human Genome Project, the widespread appeal of personalized genomic medicine's vision and potential virtues for health care remains compelling. Advocates argue that our current medical regime “is in crisis as it is expensive, reactive, inefficient, and focused largely on one size fits all treatments for events of late stage disease.” What is revolutionary about this kind of medicine, its advocates maintain, is that it promises to resolve that crisis by simultaneously increasing the ability (...) to be “personalized,” “predictive,” “preventive,” and “participatory.” Some call personalized genomic medicine “P4 Medicine,” inscribing these cardinal virtues into the movement's name. All of these putative virtues have interesting implications for the future of health care. In this essay, we are especially interested in the claims that personalized medicine will lead to a more “participatory” or “patient‐centered” approach to health care, in which patients are “empowered” to take more personal control over their care. The rhetoric of patient empowerment is nothing new in health care, but personalized medicine is an interesting case study because it portrays empowerment as one of its key virtues and as a mechanism for fixing the health care “crisis.”. (shrink)

When deciding what disorders to screen newborns for, we should be guided by evidence of real effectiveness, take opportunity cost into account, distribute costs and benefits fairly, and respect human rights. Current newborn screening policy does not meet these requirements.

Debates about expanding newborn screening with whole genome sequencing are fueled by data about public perception, public opinion, and the positions taken by public advocates and advocacy groups. One form of evidence that merits attention as we consider possible uses of whole‐genome sequencing during the newborn period is parents’ (and children's) diverse experiences with existing expanded screening protocols. What do we know about this experience base? And what implications might these data have for decisions about how we use whole genome (...) sequencing and how we assess its impact in the future? Although the broader literature on genetic susceptibility testing suggests that testing usually does not have adverse effects on children's psychosocial well‐being, certain newborn screening results have been demonstrated to cause distress, alter behavior, and even to influence the formation of new parental and family identities. (shrink)

Parents, providers, policy makers, and the public need to talk about the implications of advances in genomic technologies for state run newborn metabolic screening programs. Technologies, such as highly multiplex testing and whole genome sequencing, are raising old issues with new urgency and are posing new challenges that threaten to overwhelm newborn screening programs.Newborn screening programs in their current form were born in the late 1960s. Robert Guthrie developed a screening test for phenylketonuria that could be performed on blood spots (...) collected on filter cards that Guthrie also developed. States rapidly established newborn screening programs, which were almost always mandatory, in response to advocacy by geneticists and parents. Although the programs initially varied in form and experienced significant pushback from the medical community, by the early 1970s, all states had established programs with centralized laboratories, and the medical community had come on board. (shrink)

Newborn screening consists of taking a few drops of blood from a baby's heel in the first week of life and testing it for a list of disorders. In the United States and most countries in Europe, newborn screening programs began in the 1960s and 1970s with screening for phenylketonuria (PKU), a rare metabolic disease that causes severe and irreversible mental retardation unless treated before problems arise. As knowledge about rare diseases expanded and new screening technologies were introduced—such as the (...) tandem mass spectrometer and high‐performance liquid chromatography—the same blood sample could be used to test for a whole list of disorders. In general, screening programs in most countries have tended to expand, but in different countries they have expanded in different ways. Regulation also varies. In some states, screening is mandatory, whereas in others—Wyoming and Maryland—parents are asked for their informed consent. Germany and France have adopted an explicit informed consent procedure, whereas other European countries have a more informal “opt‐out” procedure that does not require signing an informed consent form. Whether newborn screening requires informed consent is an ongoing issue in bioethics. In this article, we will focus on the tension between informed consent and the problem of compliance in newborn screening. Asking for informed consent—allowing parents to opt out—is often thought to pose a threat to compliance. Building on the work of Onora O'Neill on informed consent and trust, however, as well as on work she coauthored with Neil Manson, we will argue that informed consent procedures may actually help maintain trust in newborn screening and may therefore support compliance. (shrink)

A significant portion of newborns cared for in the neonatal intensive care unit or other ICUs, such as the cardiac ICU, have a medical condition with a genetic component, including congenital malformations, the leading cause of death in the NICU. In many cases, however, it is not clear which condition the child has or what can be done to help him or her. Genomic sequencing of sick newborns has the potential to bypass the prolonged journey to a diagnosis, improving the (...) medical care of individual infants. Sequencing also has the potential to benefit others beyond the child whose genome is sequenced and his or her immediate family. Sequence data from sick newborns will expand medicine's understanding of genetic diseases, leading to improvements in clinicians’ ability to counsel family and to provide even more targeted care. Not only will more frequent use of sequencing lead to discovery of new genes; it will also provide unique insights into the full spectrum of known Mendelian genetic diseases, so‐called phenotypic expansion, when a gene previously recognized as associated with a phenotype is found to be associated with an expanded set of clinical features. Genetic and environmental changes that modify the expression of a genetic disease may also be elucidated. (shrink)