February 20, 2020

Genetic Prediction of Psychiatric Illnesses: What You Need to Know

It may soon be possible to identify people at increased risk for psychiatric illnesses such as schizophrenia and depression by calculating their “polygenic risk scores.” These scores are intended to capture, for any individual, the net effect of hundreds or thousands of genetic variants, each of which alone has just a small influence on a condition. But polygenic risk scores are probabilistic and individual prediction is uncertain, so how can they be used safely and responsibly with patients? A public conference at Columbia University on March 10, convened by a collaborative project of Columbia University Irving Medical Center and The Hastings Center, will address ethical, legal, and social challenges to the prospective use of polygenic risk scores in psychiatry. Organizers of the conference include Erik Parens, a senior research scholar at The Hastings Center; Josephine Johnston, director of research and a research scholar; Lucas Matthews, a postdoctoral researcher at Hastings and Columbia; and Columbia professors Ruth Ottman and Paul Appelbaum. Learn more and register here. And read the latest issue of Braingenethics, a monthly newsletter covering the intersection of genetics and brain science that is produced by the project. Read the issue. Subscribe for free.

Ethics Consult: Edit an Embryo's Genome to Prevent Disease?

Consider this hypothetical case. A 25-year-old woman has received a devastating diagnosis—she carries the mutation for an extremely rare disease that is usually fatal. She faces an ethical dilemma about whether to have biological children and, if she does, whether to use prenatal testing or assisted reproduction to assure that her children don’t carry the mutation. In the future, people in her position could be offered germline editing to correct the genetic mutation in the affected embryos—and assure that the genetic change would be passed down to future generations. Is changing an embryo’s genes worth the ethical risk? Are some reasons for germline editing more acceptable than others? Would it be acceptable to edit embryos if it means not discarding any embryos created for assisted reproduction? These questions were the focus of a Twitter chat on Wednesday organized by MedPage Today and featuring Hastings Center director of research Josephine Johnston. Read the discussion at #EthicsMPT.

Hastings Center Fellows in China: Silencing Doctor Impeded Early Control of Coronavirus

“The death of Dr. Li Wenliang from COVID-19 is heartbreaking for our country and people. Dr. Li was reprimanded for messages he posted in a chat group warning fellow doctors about a mysterious infection. His death on February 7 sparked anguish and anger because it underscored gaps and deficiencies in our country’s health care system and system of governance,” write two Hastings Center Fellows, Ruipeng Lei and Renzong Qiu, in Hastings Bioethics Forum. “The infringement on his right of expression is both unethical and unlawful, and it impeded early control of the epidemic.” Read their Bioethics Forum post.

Donate

The Hastings Center is funded by people like you. Please support The Hastings Center. Established in 1969, The Hastings Center has been studying the social and ethical issues in health care, science, and technology for 50 years.

Subscribe to the Hastings Center Report here. Subscribe to Ethics & Human Research here.

We strongly value your privacy and would never sell, give, or otherwise share your information. If you no longer wish to receive emails from the Center, you may Unsubscribe or Update Your Preferences. For further information, please visit our website at www.thehastingscenter.org, or email us at [email protected]. Copyright © 2020 The Hastings Center, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because of your interest in The Hastings Center.

Our mailing address is:

The Hastings Center

21 Malcolm Gordon Rd.

Garrison, NY 10524

Add us to your address book