Some epidemiologists and geneticists claim that integrating genetics into public health policies and programs is necessary and unavoidable. Objective: To examine the extent to which further integration of public health and genetics is warranted. Methods: Synthesis of the literature in four areas: research, genetic services, regulation, and education. The analysis is limited to human genetics. Results: Public support for basic genetic research has and will continue to lead to new applications and to further understanding of human origins and dispersions. Some applied research, particularly for genetic risk factors for common complex diseases, has low yield and is better supported by private funds. The only genetic service for which a public health role is paramount is newborn screening. With the patenting of genes, and the proliferation of commercial interests in genetic tests and directly advertising them to the public, regulation by public health agencies is increasingly important. As most genetic testing and other services will be provided in the personal health care system, education about genetics is best left to the educational and medical systems. Public health practitioners should be aware of the limitations of genetic tests. Conclusions: There is little need for further integration of genetic services and education into public health especially in countries in which public and private health services are dichotomized. Newborn screening and follow-up, however, are most safely and effectively provided under public health auspices. The most important area for strengthening the public health role is in the regulation of genetic tests and other genetic services provided primarily by the private sector. Continued support for basic genetic research is needed.

Keywords:
Genetics, Newborn screening, Public health, Resource allocation
1.
Khoury MJ, Burke W, Thomson ET: Preface; in Khoury MJ, Burke W, Thomson EJ (eds): Genetics and Public Health in the 21st Century: Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease. New York, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp v–vii.
2.
Piper MA, Lindenmayer JM, Lengerich EJ, Pass KA, Brown WG, Crowder WB, et al: The role of state public health agencies in genetics and disease prevention: results of a national survey. Public Health Rep 2001;116:22–31.
3.
Venter JC: Remarks at the human genome announcement. Funct Integr Genomics 2000;1:154–155.
4.
Antonarakis SE, McKusick VA: OMIM passes the 1,000-disease-gene mark. Nat Genet 2000;25:11.
5.
Edelstein ML, Abedi MR, Wixon J, Edelstein RM: Gene therapy clinical trials worldwide 1989–2004 – an overview. J Gene Med 2004;6:597–602.
6.
Lyngstadaas A: Status and potential of gene therapy in clinical medicine. Assessment of an emerging health technology through systematic survey of clinical gene therapy protocols and published results. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002;18:645–674.
7.
Smith L, Byers JF: Gene therapy in the post-Gelsinger era. JONAS Healthc Law Ethics Regul 2002;4:104–110.
8.
Haffner ME: Developing treatments for inborn errors: incentives available to the clinician. Mol Genet Metab 2004;81(suppl):63–66.
9.
Boonstra A, de Zeeuw D, de Jong PE, Navis G: Role of genetic variability in the renin-angiotensin system in diabetic and nondiabetic renal disease. Semin Nephrol 2001;21:580–592.
10.
Bratt O: Hereditary prostate cancer: clinical aspects. J Urol 2002;168:906–913.
11.
Hakonarson H, Halapi E: Genetic analyses in asthma: current concepts and future directions. Am J Pharmacogenomics 2002;2:155–166.
12.
Holtzman NA: Clinical utility of pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics; in Rothstein MA (ed): Pharacogenomics: social, ethical, and clinical dimensions. Hoboken, Wiley-Liss, 2003, pp 163–185.
13.
Weiss KM, Terwilliger JD: How many dis- eases does it take to map a gene with SNPs? Nat Genet 2000;26:151–157.
14.
Gretarsdottir S, Thorleifsson G, Reynisdottir ST, Manolescu A, Jonsdottir S, Jonsdottir T, et al: The gene encoding phosphodiesterase 4D confers risk of ischemic stroke. Nat Genet 2003;35:131–138.
15.
Helgadottir A, Manolescu A, Thorleifsson G, Gretarsdottir S, Jonsdottir H, Thorsteinsdottir U, et al: The gene encoding 5-lipoxygenase activating protein confers risk of myocardial infarction and stroke. Nat Genet 2004;36:233–239.
16.
Stefansson H, Steinthorsdottir V, Thorgeirsson TE, Gulcher JR, Stefansson K: Neuregulin 1 and schizophrenia. Ann Med 2004;36:62–71.
17.
Stefansson SE, Jonsson H, Ingvarsson T, Manolescu I, Jonsson HH, Olafsdottir G, et al: Genomewide scan for hand osteoarthritis: a novel mutation in matrilin-3. Am J Hum Genet 2003;72:1448–1459.
18.
Rajagopalan H, Nowak MA, Vogelstein B, Lengauer C: The significance of unstable chromosomes in colorectal cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2003;3:695–701.
19.
Spigel DR, Burstein HJ: Trastuzumab regimens for HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 2003;4:329–337.
20.
Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S: ‘Mendelian randomization’: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol 2003;32:1–22.
21.
Jin YH, Clark AB, Slebos RJ, Al Refai H, Taylor JA, Kunkel TA, et al: Cadmium is a mutagen that acts by inhibiting mismatch repair. Nat Genet 2003;34:326–329.
22.
McMurray CT, Tainer JA: Cancer, cadmium and genome integrity. Nat Genet 2003;34:239–241.
23.
Thilly WG: Have environmental mutagens caused oncomutations in people? Nat Genet 2003;34:255–259.
24.
Sankar P, Cho MK, Condit CM, Hunt LM, Koenig B, Marshall P, et al: Genetic research and health disparities. JAMA 2004;291:2985–2989.
25.
Holtzman NA: Genetics and social class. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002;56:529–535.
26.
Li CC: A tale of two thermos bottles: properties of a genetic model for human intelligence; in Cancro R (ed): Intelligence: Genetic and Environmental Influences. Philadelphia, Grune & Stratton, 1971, pp 162–181.
27.
Evans RG, Barer ML, Marmor TR: Why Are Some People Healthy and Others Not? The Determinants of Health of Populations. Hawthorne, Aldine de Gruyter, 1994.
28.
McKeown T: The role of medicine: dream, mirage, or nemesis? Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1979.
29.
Committee for the Study of Inborn Errors of Metabolism: Genetic Screening: Programs, Principles, and Research. Washington, National Academy of Sciences, 1975.
30.
Wilson JMG, Jungner G: Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease. Geneva, World Health Organization, 1968.
31.
Birch HG, Tizard J: The dietary treatment of phenylketonuria: not proven? Dev Med Child Neurol 1967;9:9–12.
32.
Holtzman NA: Dietary treatment of inborn errors of metabolism. Annu Rev Med 1970;21:335–356.
33.
Holtzman NA, Kronmal RA, van Doorninck W, Azen C, Koch R: Effect of age at loss of dietary control on intellectual performance and behavior of children with phenylketonuria. N Engl J Med 1986;314:593–598.
34.
Pollitt RJ, Green A, McCabe CJ, Booth A, Cooper NJ, Leonard JV, et al: Neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism: cost, yield and outcome. Health Technol Assess 1997;1:1–202.
35.
Paul DB: The history of newborn phenylketonuria screening; in Holtzman NA, Watson MS (eds): Promoting Safe and Effective Genetic Testing in the United States. Final Report. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998, pp 137–160.
36.
Holtzman NA: Anatomy of a trial. Pediatrics 1977;60:932–934.
37.
Reilly P: Genetics, Law, and Social Policy. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1977.
38.
Holtzman NA: Proceed with Caution. Predicting Genetic Risks in the Recombinant DNA Era. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989.
39.
Starfield B, Holtzman NA: A comparison of effectiveness of screening for phenylketonuria in the United States, United Kingdom and Ireland. N Engl J Med 1975;293:118–121.
40.
Levy HL, Albers S: Genetic screening of newborns. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2000;1:139–177.
41.
Holtzman NA: Expanding newborn screening: how good is the evidence? JAMA 2003;290:2606–2608.
42.
Waisbren SE, Albers S, Amato S, Ampola M, Brewster TG, Demmer L, et al: Effect of expanded newborn screening for biochemical genetic disorders on child outcomes and parental stress. JAMA 2003;290:2564–2572.
43.
Farrell PM, Kosorok MR, Rock MJ, Laxova A, Zeng L, Lai HC, et al: Early diagnosis of cystic fibrosis through neonatal screening prevents severe malnutrition and improves long-term growth. Wisconsin Cystic Fibrosis Neonatal Screening Study Group. Pediatrics 2001;107:1–13.
44.
Guterman L: Choosing eugenics: How far will nations go to eliminate a genetic disease? Chron High Educ 2003;49:A22–A24, A26.
45.
Cao A: Carrier screening and genetic counselling in beta-thalassemia. Int J Hematol 2002;76(suppl 2):105–113.
46.
Kaback MM: Population-based genetic screening for reproductive counseling: the Tay-Sachs disease model. Eur J Pediatr 2000;159(suppl 3):S192–S195.
47.
Rowley PT, Loader S, Sutera CJ, Walden M, Kozyra A: Prenatal screening for hemoglobinopathies. I. A prospective regional trial. Am J Human Genet 1991;48:439–446.
48.
Girodon-Boulandet E, Cazeneuve C, Goossens M: Screening practices for mutations in the CFTR gene ABCC7. Hum Mutat 2000;15:135–149.
49.
Gregg AR, Simpson JL: Genetic screening for cystic fibrosis. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2002;29:329–340.
50.
Holtzman NA: What drives neonatal screening programs? N Engl J Med 1991;325:802–804.
51.
General Accounting Office: Newborn Screening: Characteristics of State Programs. GAO-03-449, 1-47. 2003. United States General Accounting Office, 2003.
52.
Hiller EH, Landenburger G, Natowicz MR: Public participation in medical policy-making and the status of consumer autonomy: the example of newborn-screening programs in the United States. Am J Public Health 1997;87:1280–1288.
53.
Andrews L, Fullarton JE, Holtzman NA, Motulsky AG (eds): Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy, ed 1. Washington, National Academy Press, 1994.
54.
Faden RR, Holtzman NA, Chwalow AJ: Parental rights, child welfare, and public health: the case of PKU screening. Am J Public Health 1982;72:1396–1400.
55.
Faden R, Chwalow AJ, Holtzman NA, Horn SD: A survey to evaluate parental consent as public policy for neonatal screening. Am J Public Health 1982;72:1347–1352.
56.
Holtzman NA, Faden RR, Chwalow AJ, Horn SD: Effect of informed parental consent on mothers’ knowledge of newborn screening. Pediatrics 1983;72:807–812.
57.
Farrell M, Certain L, Farrell P: Genetic counseling and risk communication services of newborn screening programs. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155:120–126.
58.
The Maternal Phenylketonuria Collaborative Study: New developments and the need for new strategies. Pediatrics 2003;3:1513–1587.
59.
Clarke A: Is non-directive genetic counselling possible? Lancet 1991;338:998–1001.
60.
Rothman BK: The Tentative Pregnancy: Prenatal Diagnosis and the Future of Motherhood. New York, Penguin, 1986.
61.
Rapp R: Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America. New York, Routledge, 1999.
62.
Press NA, Browner CH: Collective silences, collective fictions: how prenatal diagnostic testing became part of routine prenatal care; in Rothenberg KH, Thomson EJ (ed): Women and Prenatal Testing. Facing the Challenges of Genetic Technology. Columbus, Ohio State University Press, 1994, pp 201–218.
63.
Browner CH, Preloran M, Press NA: The effects of ethnicity, education and an informational video on pregnant women’s knowledge and decisions about a prenatal diagnostic screening test. Patient Educ Counsel 1996;27:135–146.
64.
Marteau TM, Drake H: Attributions for disability: the influence of genetic screening. Soc Sci Med 1995;40:1127–1132.
65.
Marteau T, Michie S, Drake H, Bobrow M: Public attitudes towards the selection of desirable characteristics in children. J Med Genet 1995;32:796–798.
66.
Holtzman NA: Eugenics and genetic testing. Sci Context 1998;11:397–417.
67.
Duster T: Backdoor to Eugenics. New York, Routledge, 1990.
68.
Schoen EJ, Baker JC, Colby CJ, To TT: Cost-benefit analysis of universal tandem mass spectrometry for newborn screening. Pediatrics 2002;110:781–786.
69.
US Congress OTA: Chap 5, Newborn screening for congenital disorders; in: Healthy Children: Investing in theFuture, OTA-H-345. Washington, US Government Printing Office, 1988.
70.
Rose G: Sick individuals and sick populations. Int J Epidemiol 1985;14:32–38.
71.
Kritz FL, Mazel S: Too much for too little? Costly newborn test fuels debate on value. Washington Post 2002, p F01.
72.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty. Supreme Court of the United States. 447 US 303; 100 S Ct 2204. 2004. June 16, 1980.
73.
Patent Rights in Inventions Made with Federal Assistance. 35 USCS § 202d. 2004. PL96-517. December 12, 1980.
74.
Parthasarathy S: The patent is political: the consequences of patenting the BRCA genes in Britain. Community Genet 2005;8:235–242.
75.
Caulfield T: Policy conflicts: gene patents and health care in Canada. Community Genet 2005;8:223–227.
76.
Cassier M, Stoppa-Lyonnet D: Opposition to Myriad Genetics patents and their total or partial revocation in Europe: early conclusions. Med Sci (Paris) 2005;21:658–662.
77.
Pediatrix Acquires nation’s largest independent laboratory specializing in newborn metabolic screening. Business Wire, 2003.
78.
Merz JF: Disease gene patents: overcoming unethical constraints on clinical laboratory medicine. Clin Chem 1999;45:324–330.
79.
Holtzman NA, Watson MS: Promoting Safe and Effective Genetic Testing in the United States. Final Report. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.
80.
Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. Enhancing the oversight of genetic tests: Recommendations of the SACGT, 2000.
81.
Holtzman NA: Are genetic tests adequately regulated? Science 1999;286:409.
82.
Gollust SE, Hull SC, Wilfond BS: Limitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing. JAMA 2002;288:1762–1767.
83.
Gollust SE, Wilfond BS, Hull SC: Direct-to-consumer sales of genetic services on the internet. Genet Med 2003;5:332–337.
84.
Williams-Jones B: Where there’s a web, there’s a way: commercial genetic testing and the internet. Community Genet 2003;6:46–57.
85.
Newborn Screening Task Force: Serving the family from birth to the medical home: A report from the newborn screening task force convened in Washington DC, May 10–11, 1999. Pediatrics 2000;106:383–427.
86.
Rothstein WG: Public Health and the Risk Factor. Rochester, University of Rochester, 2003.
87.
Farfel MR, Holtzman NA: Education, consent, and counseling in sickle cell screening programs: report of a survey. Am J Public Health 1984;74:373–375.
88.
Wilson JF, Weale ME, Smith AC, Gratrix F, Fletcher B, Thomas MG, et al: Population genetic structure of variable drug response. Nat Genet 2001;29:265–269.
89.
Cooper RS, Psaty BM: Genomics and medicine: distraction, incremental progress, or the dawn of a new age? Ann Intern Med 2003;138:576–580.
90.
Lander ES, Schork NJ: Genetic dissection of complex traits. Science 1994;265:2037–2048.
91.
McKinlay JB, Marceau LD: A tale of 3 tails (editorial). Am J Public Health 1999;89:295–298.
92.
Ioannidis JP, Ntzani EE, Trikalinos TA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG: Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nat Genet 2001;29:306–309.
93.
Hirschhorn JN, Lohmueller K, Byrne E, Hirschhorn K: A comprehensive review of genetic association studies. Genet Med 2002;4:45–61.
94.
Lohmueller KE, Pearce CL, Pike M, Lander ES, Hirschhorn JN: Meta-analysis of genetic association studies supports a contribution of common variants to susceptibility to common disease. Nat Genet 2003;33:177–182.
95.
Rockhill B: The privatization of risk. Am J Public Health 2001;91:365–368.
96.
Pearce N: Traditional epidemiology, modern epidemiology, and public health. Am J Public Health 1996;86:678–683.
© 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel
2006
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.