Researchers into genetic surgery in Philadelphia developing a technique to eliminate HIV from cells. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Why DNA testing isn’t always best for customising medical treatment

Greater understanding of the genetic causes of illness suggests that this method of categorisation might not be the most accurate.

If doctors discovered you had a 30 per cent chance of developing colon cancer, would you want to know? What if that probability was only 10 per cent, or perhaps as high as 50? Maybe it would depend on what you could do to improve your prognosis – or whether the information would be confidential.

These ethical issues are becoming increasingly relevant following the announcement this month of a landmark £300m project to sequence the genomes of 100,000 NHS patients. The programme, which will last four years, is part of the developing field of personalised medicine and it aims to use genetic data to customise medical treatments.

Currently, many diseases are defined by their symptoms or the site of occurrence. Greater understanding of the genetic causes of illness suggests that this method of categorisation might not be the most accurate. For instance, scientists now believe that cancer is better understood as a plethora of diseases rather than a single one because of the variety of underlying genetic mutations.

Improved awareness of these genetic factors raises the potential of new treatment options. Up to one in four cases of breast cancer is caused by a mutation in the gene that encodes the HER2 protein. As such, Herceptin, the drug used to target the protein, is given only to breast cancer patients with this genetic abnormality. It is hoped that further research will allow more drugs to be optimised in a similar way.

Personalised medicine could also be safer. Genetic variation among patients has been linked to dangerous reactions to drugs. In 2004, a British Medical Journal report estimated that each year in the UK, more than 10,000 deaths result from adverse reactions to drugs. By predicting how patients will respond to medication, genetic screening could help avoid these cases.

There is also the possibility of disease prevention. If we know which diseases we are most susceptible to, that allows us to take precautions. For instance, a patient might choose to have surgery to remove her ovaries after discovering that she has a genetic predisposition to ovarian cancer. These changes can also be more subtle. Health advice can often seem overwhelming; genetic testing could personalise dietary guidelines or fitness regimes for individuals.

These exciting developments bring challenges. A 2001 study found that genetic testing had certain severe psychological implications, with a group of adults reporting clinical levels of anxiety and depression after learning that their genes predisposed them to colon cancer. Especially when it comes to conditions for which effective treatment isn’t available, it’s worth asking yourself how much of your genome you wish to explore.

Another concern often raised is the legal status of genetic data. In 2008, the US government introduced the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act to prevent employers and health insurers requesting genetic records. In the UK the government relies on a voluntary agreement with the Association of British Insurers. This expires in 2017 and a review is due this year.

That said, if you wish to discover your medical fate you needn’t wait for the NHS project. Private companies already offer genotyping services for less than £100.

George Gillett is a freelance journalist and medical student. He is on Twitter @george_gillett and blogs here.

This article first appeared in the 13 August 2014 issue of the New Statesman, A century of meddling in the Middle East

Getty
Show Hide image

The joy of only winning once: why England should be proud of 1966

We feel the glory of that triumphant moment, 50 years ago, all the more because of all the other occasions when we have failed to win.

There’s a phrase in football that I really hate. It used to be “Thirty years of hurt”. Each time the England team crashes out of a major tournament it gets regurgitated with extra years added. Rather predictably, when England lost to Iceland in Euro 2016, it became “Fifty years of hurt”. We’ve never won the European Championship and in 17 attempts to win the World Cup we have only won once. I’m going to tell you why that’s a record to cherish.

I was seven in 1966. Our telly was broken so I had to watch the World Cup final with a neighbour. I sat squeezed on my friend Colin’s settee as his dad cheered on England with phrases like “Sock it to them Bobby”, as old fashioned now as a football rattle. When England took the lead for the second time I remember thinking, what will it feel like, when we English are actually Champions of the World. Not long after I knew. It felt good.

Wembley Stadium, 30 July 1966, was our only ever World Cup win. But let’s imagine what it would be like if, as with our rivals, we’d won it many times? Brazil have been World Champions on five occasions, Germany four, and Italy four. Most England fans would be “over the moon” if they could boast a similarly glorious record. They’re wrong. I believe it’s wonderful that we’ve only triumphed once. We all share that one single powerful memory. Sometimes in life less is definitely more.

Something extraordinary has happened. Few of us are even old enough to remember, but somehow, we all know everything that happened that day. Even if you care little about the beautiful game, I’m going to bet that you can recall as many as five iconic moments from 50 years ago. You will have clearly in your mind the BBC commentator Kenneth Wolstenholme’s famous lines, as Geoff Hurst tore down the pitch to score his hat-trick: “Some people are on the pitch. They think it’s all over. It is now”. And it was. 4 - 2 to England against West Germany. Thirty minutes earlier the Germans had equalised in the dying moments of the second half to take the game to extra time.

More drama we all share: Geoff Hurst’s second goal. Or the goal that wasn’t, as technology has since, I think, conclusively proved. The shot that crashed off the cross bar and did or didn’t cross the line. Of course, even if you weren’t alive at the time, you will know that the linesman, one Tofiq Bakhramov, from Azerbaijan (often incorrectly referred to as “Russian”) could speak not a word of English, signalled it as a goal.

Then there’s the England Captain, the oh-so-young and handsome Bobby Moore. The very embodiment of the era. You can picture him now wiping his muddy hands on his white shorts before he shakes hands with a youthful Queen Elizabeth. Later you see him lifted aloft by his team mates holding the small golden Jules Rimet trophy.

How incredible, how simply marvellous that as a nation we share such golden memories. How sad for the Brazilians and Germans. Their more numerous triumphs are dissipated through the generations. In those countries each generation will remember each victory but not with the intensity with which we English still celebrate 1966. It’s as if sex was best the first time. The first cut is the deepest.

On Colin’s dad’s TV the pictures were black and white and so were the flags. Recently I looked at the full colour Pathe newsreel of the game. It’s the red, white and blue of the Union Jack that dominates. The red cross of Saint George didn’t really come into prominence until the Nineties. The left don’t like flags much, unless they’re “deepest red”. Certainly not the Union Flag. It smacks of imperialism perhaps. In 1966 we didn’t seem to know if we were English or British. Maybe there was, and still is, something admirable and casual about not knowing who we are or what is our proper flag. 

Twelve years later I’m in Cuba at the “World Festival of Youth” – the only occasion I’ve represented my country. It was my chance to march into a stadium under my nation’s flag. Sadly, it never happened as my fellow delegates argued for hours over what, if any, flag we British should walk behind. The delegation leaders – you will have heard of them now, but they were young and unknown then – Peter Mandelson, Trevor Phillips and Charles Clarke, had to find a way out of this impasse. In the end, each delegation walked into the stadium behind their flag, except the British. Poor Mandelson stood alone for hours holding Union Jack, sweltering in the tropical sun. No other country seemed to have a problem with their flag. I guess theirs speak of revolution; ours of colonialism.

On Saturday 30 July BBC Radio 2 will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 1966 World Cup Final, live from Wembley Arena. Such a celebration is only possible because on 16 occasions we failed to win that trophy. Let’s banish this idea of “Fifty years of hurt” once and for all and embrace the joy of only winning once.

Phil Jones edits the Jeremy Vine Show on BBC Radio 2. On Saturday 30 July the station celebrates the 50th anniversary of the 1966 World Cup Final live from Wembley Arena, telling the story of football’s most famous match, minute by minuteTickets are available from: www.wc66.org