The Genome That Keeps on Giving

Last week the Smithsonian’s National Museum Of Natural History announced that in June, 2013, it will open a big exhibit on the human genome to mark the 10th anniversary of the mapping of the human body’s genetic blueprint.

That was no small accomplishment back in the spring of 2003 when the Human Genome Project completed its mission of identifying and determining the sequencing of the roughly 20,000 genes in our DNA. It took at least a billion dollars and 13 years to decipher the puzzle.

To get a sense of how far and how fast the technology has advanced in the past decade, consider that now a genome can be sequenced in less than a day at a cost of somewhere between $3,000 and $5,000.

Getting that down to $1,000 is considered a tipping point, the price at which health care experts believe personal genome mapping will become an everyday medical practice. Already, a scaled-down version called genotyping can be purchased from firms such as 23andMe for $99 and a $9 monthly subscription fee. As Dan Costa wrote for PC Magazine, that entitles you a wide range of personal revelations–in his case that his earwax type is wet and that he has a “typical chance” of going bald, but also that he has a higher than average sensitivity to Warfarin, an often prescribed blood thinner, and that he is almost twice as likely as the average man of European ancestry to develop macular degeneration, or some loss of vision in old age. He also receives updates about any new relevant research.

But what does it all mean?

Costa does wonder how to interpret what he now knows about what’s ticking inside him, although he doesn’t doubt that this kind of self-knowledge will encourage people to get more serious about taking care of themselves. He says he’s going to ratchet up the fruit and veggies in his diet, thanks to that tip about macular degeneration.

But there are other dicey questions. Most geneticists agree that it’s good for people to know about their risk of conditions for which they could take preventive measures, such as breast or ovarian cancer or heart disease. But what about learning you had a genetic marker for Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease, for which, at this point, there is no cure? Or does it make sense to have this kind of data going directly from the testing companies to individuals, without any involvement of a doctor required? (The American Medical Association has already weighed in with a robust “No” on that one.)

And how much weight should genetic risk be given, after all, when many diseases, such as cancer and diabetes, are also tied to plenty of environmental and behavioral factors? Isn’t a genetic marker only an ingredient in a complex stew?

That’s a point at the heart of recent study of identical twins done at Johns Hopkins, which found that genome sequencing isn’t yet the predictor of future health that some people have suggested it could be. Using a mathematical model based on what they knew about the medical histories of twins, the researchers concluded that under the best case scenario, most people would learn they had a somewhat increased risk of at least one disease. But negative results for other diseases didn’t mean they wouldn’t get them–only that they’re at no more risk than the rest of the population. So we’re still talking about a cloudy crystal ball.

Another study, published in the journal Genetics in Medicine, undercuts an argument that wide scale genetic testing will drive up health care costs because people anxious about their results will seek more and more lab tests and followups with doctors. But this study didn’t show that–in fact, the people who received genetic testing didn’t ramp up their use of health care services any more than people who weren’t tested.

Only one thing we can say with certainty: As much as we now know about the human genome, we still have a lot to learn about how we’ll use that knowledge.

Code read

Here’s more of the latest news about genetic research:

• Jack and Jill went on The Pill: Now that Scottish scientists have identified a gene that’s critical for sperm production, the chances look better that we’ll someday have a male birth control pill.
• Bad influences: A team of researchers at Imperial College London found that the danger of a woman getting breast cancer doubled if her genes had been changed by exposure to smoke, alcohol, pollution and other factors.
• When mice age better than cheese: For the first time, Spanish scientists have been able to use gene therapy to lengthen the lives of adult mice. In the past, this has been done only with mouse embryos.
• Head games: Should high school kids be tested to see if they have an Alzheimer’s gene before they’re allowed to play football? Two scientists who study both Alzheimer’s and traumatic brain injuries to football players have raised that pointed question in the journal Science Translational Medicine.
• Forget about his feet, send his hair: Researchers at Oxford University in London have put out a call to anyone holding Bigfoot hair or other samples from the creature. They promise to do genetic testing on anything that comes their way.

Video bonus: Richard Resnick is CEO of a company called GenomeQuest so he definitely has a point of view about how big a role genome sequencing will play in our lives. But he does make a good case in this TED talk.

Randy Rieland | | READ MORE

Randy Rieland is a digital media strategist and contributing writer in innovations for Smithsonian.com.