Biological research specialists from the United States of America gave a report analyzing the feasibility of decoding the genomes of newborns.
The very fact of the existence of science and modern technology in the world of ignorance raises a huge number of questions. An example is vaccination and the problems accompanying this process, including all myths. In addition to this, there is another side to this question, which has not gained much fame. It is associated with the profiling of the population. But will it be possible to achieve success with this technology, or will it bring even more harm?
Every year the cost of the process of decoding the genome becomes much less. Increasingly, experts say the emergence of a completely new, personalized medicine. By studying your genetic code, doctors will be able not only to determine genetic predispositions and abnormalities, but also to choose a personalized treatment that will perfectly suit your DNA structure.
It would seem that to destroy all the obstacles between familiar and personalized medicine, it is enough to pass on the genetic data of all patients to specialists. To put it another way, it is necessary to make the decoding of the genome free, subjecting it to each born child. Reducing the cost will help reduce costs to government agencies and insurance companies.
And if from a financial point of view it has become very real, then it is worth thinking about what result we can achieve. The staff of the Hastings Bioethics Center in New York interested this question. They presented their research results in a report.
Positive and negative sides
The report includes several articles addressing the negative and positive aspects of profiling. Positive suggest themselves. First of all, if newborns can immediately receive personalized medical care, this will solve various problems of social inequality in this area. Diagnosing hereditary diseases will be much easier and faster. In certain cases, it will be possible to minimize the impact of the disease on a person’s life. This process will be beneficial, even if indirectly, even to those who refuse such a procedure. These arguments are given in the report by Professor Ingrid Holm.
What is the negative side? One of them will be the same reason as in the case of vaccinations. But so far, it does not occupy a key meaning, because most of the public treats profiling quite well. Sometimes even trust becomes excessive: some people put their genomic code right on social networks, proving to others that their ancestors belonged to a certain nationality. But if this process is made a mandatory procedure, then everything can very rarely change and not for the better.
The remaining hazards are described in the article by Professor Stacy Prereira and Ellen Wright Clayton. It addresses the following issues: the emergence of commercial interest, a technological imperative, and lawyers. These three factors can specifically fuel interest in personalized medicine. Another article talks about the negative effects of profiling the genome on the future life of the family, associated with heightened suspiciousness and excessive interest.
It is too early
The results of the report are as follows: at the moment there is no need for compulsory profiling of the genome of the population. In addition, medical professionals should not make recommendations for contacting a company that performs commercial profiling of the genome as a means of prevention. But if there are any symptoms that signal a genetic disease, or if a person needs profiled medical care in connection with a non-genetic disease that has appeared, it should be possible to obtain genetic profiling.
Also in the report expressed the views of the medical and biological community, having a clear character. It becomes clear that in the next 10 years, we are not afraid of total decoding. When writing the report, the positive and negative aspects of this process were analyzed. Even indirect factors were taken into account, including refractions in the mass consciousness and a financial issue. Optimism suggests that ignorance will diminish, and genomic technologies evolve. And in the future, when the balance of these factors change, scientists plan to return to this issue again.
