Eugenics and genetic testing

What role for public health in genetics and vice versa?

Some epidemiologists and geneticists claim that integrating genetics into public health policies and programs is necessary and unavoidable.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the extent to which further integration of public health and genetics is warranted.

METHODS

Synthesis of the literature in four areas: research, genetic services, regulation, and education. The analysis is limited to human genetics.

RESULTS

Public support for basic genetic research has and will continue to lead to new applications and to further understanding of human origins and dispersions. Some applied research, particularly for genetic risk factors for common complex diseases, has low yield and is better supported by private funds. The only genetic service for which a public health role is paramount is newborn screening. With the patenting of genes, and the proliferation of commercial interests in genetic tests and directly advertising them to the public, regulation by public health agencies is increasingly important. As most genetic testing and other services will be provided in the personal health care system, education about genetics is best left to the educational and medical systems. Public health practitioners should be aware of the limitations of genetic tests.

CONCLUSIONS

There is little need for further integration of genetic services and education into public health especially in countries in which public and private health services are dichotomized. Newborn screening and follow-up, however, are most safely and effectively provided under public health auspices. The most important area for strengthening the public health role is in the regulation of genetic tests and other genetic services provided primarily by the private sector. Continued support for basic genetic research is needed.

The Politics of Life Itself

This article explores contemporary biopolitics in the light of Michel Foucault's oft quoted suggestion that contemporary politics calls `life itself' into question. It suggests that recent developments in the life sciences, biomedicine and biotechnology can usefully be analysed along three dimensions. The first concerns logics of control - for contemporary biopolitics is risk politics. The second concerns the regime of truth in the life sciences - for contemporary biopolitics is molecular politics. The third concerns technologies of the self - for contemporary biopolitics is ethopolitics. The article suggests that, in these events, human beings have become `somatic individuals': personhood is increasingly being defined in terms of corporeality, and new and direct relations are established between our biology and our conduct. At the same time, this somatic and corporeal individuality has become opened up to choice, prudence and responsibility, to experimentation, to contestation and so to a politics of `life itself'.