| アブストラクト | Should consumers be able to obtain information about their own bodies, even if it has no proven medical value? Direct-to-consumer ("DTC") genomic companies offer consumers two services: generation of the consumer's personal genetic sequence, and interpretation of that sequence in light of current research. Concerned that consumers will misunderstand genomic information and make ill-advised health decisions, regulators, legislators and scholars have advocated restricted access to DTC genomic services. The Food and Drug Administration, which has historically refrained from regulating most genetic tests, has announced its intent to treat DTC genomic services as medical devices because they make "medical claims." This Article argues that FDA regulation of genomic services as medical devices would be counterproductive. Clinical laboratories conducting genetic tests are already overseen by a federal regime administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. While consumers and clinicians would benefit from clearer communication of test results and their health implications, FDA's gatekeeping framework is ill-suited to weigh the safety and efficacy of genomic information that is not medically actionable in traditional ways. Playing gatekeeper would burden FDA's resources, conflict with the patient-empowering policies promoted by personalized medicine initiatives, impair individuals' access to information in which they have powerful autonomy interests, weaken novel participatory research infrastructures, and set a poor precedent for the future regulation of medical information. Rather than applying its risk-based regulatory framework to genetic information, FDA should ameliorate regulatory uncertainty by working with the Federal Trade Commission and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to ensure that DTC genomic services deliver analytically valid data, market and implement their services in a truthful manner, and fully disclose the limitations of their services. Federal agencies with relevant expertise should collaborate on standards and best practices for interpreting genetic information in light of scientific uncertainty, and an adverse event reporting system should be established to collect empirical data verifying or disproving the speculative harms resulting from individual access to genetic information. Most of all, FDA should take advantage of this opportunity to adapt its regulatory process to an increasingly informational health ecosystem. |
|---|
