Psychiatric Genomics and Mental Health Treatment: Setting the Ethical Agenda

The ethics of polygenic scores in psychiatry: minefield or opportunity for patient-centered psychiatry?

Recent advancements in psychiatric genetics have sparked a lively debate on the opportunities and pitfalls of incorporating polygenic scores into clinical practice. Yet, several ethical concerns have been raised, casting doubt on whether further development and implementation of polygenic scores would be compatible with providing ethically responsible care. While these ethical issues warrant thoughtful consideration, it is equally important to recognize the unresolved need for guidance on heritability among patients and their families. Increasing the availability of genetic counseling services in psychiatry should be regarded as a first step toward meeting these needs. As a next step, future integration of novel genetic tools such as polygenic scores into genetic counseling may be a promising way to improve psychiatric counseling practice. By embedding the exploration of polygenic psychiatry into the supporting environment of genetic counseling, some of the previously identified ethical pitfalls may be prevented, and opportunities to bolster patient empowerment can be seized upon. To ensure an ethically responsible approach to psychiatric genetics, active collaboration with patients and their relatives is essential, accompanied by educational efforts to facilitate informed discussions between psychiatrists and patients.

Disciplinary differences in the study of the relationship between social variables and mental health: A systematic mapping review

There has been sustained interest in the intersection between social constructs and mental health from diverse disciplines including psychiatry, sociology and public health. However, no systematic attempt has been made to catalogue what is meant by 'social' by different researchers, how variables deemed 'social' constructs are linked to mental health, nor whether these patterns differ by academic discipline. Understanding interdisciplinary differences and commonalities may reveal opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration to enhance our understanding of how social factors relate to mental health. This article presents a prospectively registered systematic map of social approaches to mental health using an innovative synthesis methodology (coding all sentences from a random selection of N = 287 articles). Results indicated that although approaches are diverse, disciplinary overlap is substantial. Psychology and psychiatry led articles tend to focus on social skills or emotions as features of mental (ill-)health, while public health and social sciences led articles tend to focus on social relationships, status or context as determinants of mental (ill-)health. Medicine led articles were most likely to focus on social outcomes of mental (ill-)health. Potential growth areas are noted, particularly the relative dearth of intervention research drawing upon social approaches. The findings are discussed with a view towards enabling more effective interdisciplinary collaboration.

The hermeneutics of recovery: Facilitating dialogue between African and Western mental health frameworks

The widespread use of faith-based and traditional healing for mental disorders within African contexts is well known. However, normative responses tend to fall within two camps: on one hand, those oriented towards the biomedical model of psychiatry stress the abuses and superstition of such healing, whilst critics adopting a more 'local' perspective have fundamentally challenged the universalist claims of biomedical diagnostic categories and psychiatric treatments. What seemingly emerges is a dichotomy between those who endorse more 'universalist' or 'relativist' approaches as an analytical lens to the challenges of the diverse healing strands within African contexts. In this article, we draw upon the resources of philosophy and existing empirical work to challenge the notion that constructive dialogue cannot be had between seemingly incommensurable healing practices in global mental health. First, we suggest the need for much-needed conceptual clarity to explore the hermeneutics of meaning, practice, and understanding, in order to forge constructive normative pathways of dialogue between seemingly incommensurable values and conceptual schemas around mental disorder and healing. Second, we contextualise the complex motives to emphasise difference amongst health practitioners within a competitive healing economy. Finally, we appeal to the notion of recovery as discovery as a fruitful conceptual framework which incorporates dialogue, comparative evaluation, and cross-cultural enrichment across divergent conceptualisations of mental health.

Ethical concerns relating to genetic risk scores for suicide

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) provide valuable information in research contexts regarding genomic changes that contribute to risks for complex psychiatric conditions like major depressive disorder. GWAS results can be used to calculate polygenic risk scores (PRS) for psychiatric conditions, such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, as well as for other traits, such as obesity or hypertension. Private companies that provide direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing sometimes report PRS for a variety of traits. Recently, the first well-powered GWAS study for suicide death was published. PRS reports that claim to assess suicide risk are therefore likely to appear soon in the DTC setting. We describe ethical concerns regarding the commercial use of GWAS results related to suicide. We identify several issues that must be addressed before PRS for suicide risk is made available to the public through DTC: (a) the potential for misinterpretation of results, (b) consumers' perceptions about determinism and behavior change, (c) potential contributions to stigma, discrimination, and health disparities; and (d) ethical problems regarding the testing of children and vulnerable adults. Tests for genetic prediction of suicidality may eventually have clinical significance, but until then, the potential for individual and public harm significantly outweighs any potential benefit. Even if genetic prediction of suicidality improves significantly, information about genetic risk scores must be distributed cautiously, with genetic counseling, and with adequate safeguards.

In-vivo design feedback and perceived utility of a genetically-informed smoking risk tool among current smokers in the community

Background

The use of genetically-informed personalized risk information for behavioral disorders, namely smoking and smoking-related behaviors, is a promising yet understudied area. The Genetics and Smoking Risk Profile, or RiskProfile, leverages genetic and environmental information to communicate one’s risk for smoking-related diseases. Although prior studies have examined attitudes toward genetic results, little research has investigated these perceptions through a lens of in-vivo testing; that is, user-centered design feedback in response to personalized genetic results being returned contemporaneously. This qualitative study engaged current smokers in usability testing of the RiskProfile within the context of concurrently receiving this personalized, genetically-informed smoking cessation intervention.

Methods

Eighty-nine participants who were current smokers responded to open-ended interview questions on perceptions of smoking-related genetic information and the content and format of the RiskProfile intervention that they had received moments before. Data were analyzed via the conventional content analysis approach in which themes were allowed to emerge throughout the analysis.

Results

Participants were able to reference and offer design input on specific elements of the RiskProfile. Overall, current smokers perceived the RiskProfile to have high potential utility. Constructive feedback that current smokers offered about the tool centered around suggested improvements to optimize its usability and technical content.

Conclusions

The detailed and constructive feedback from participants highlights that in-vivo feedback offers a useful design approach that addresses concerns of rigor and relevance when returning genetic results. This unique method demonstrated perceived utility and constructive design feedback for the RiskProfile among current smokers and can play an important role in optimizing the design and implementation of personalized genetic risk interventions moving forward.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12920-021-00976-1.

The role of causal knowledge in stigma considerations in African genomics research: Views of South African Xhosa people

INTRODUCTION

Advances in genomics research have raised several ethical concerns. One concern is the potential impact of genomics research on stigma experienced by people affected by a disease. Studies have found that the type of illness as well as disease causal beliefs impact on the relation between genetic attribution and stigma. This study explored the potential impact of genetic attribution of disease on stigma among Xhosa people with Rheumatic Heart Disease (RHD).

METHODS

Study participants were 46 Xhosa people with RHD living in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. Using video vignettes in 7 focus group discussions we explored whether and how genetic attribution may impact on disease-stigma. Vignettes introduced participants to non-genetic and genetic causal explanations and were followed-up with a series of open-ended questions eliciting their perceptions of non-genetic disease causes as well as genetic causation and its impact on internalised stigma.

RESULTS

This study found that Xhosa people with RHD have a general understanding of genetics and genetic attribution for disease. Additionally, and not withstanding their genetic knowledge, these participants hold multiple disease causal beliefs including genetic, infectious disease, psychosocial, behavioural and cultural explanations. While there was evidence of internalised stigma experiences among participants, these appeared not to be related to a genetic attribution to the disease.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study provide clues as to why it is unlikely that a genetic conceptualisation of disease impacts internalised stigma experiences of Xhosa people. The causal explanations provided by participants reflect their cultural understandings and their context, namely, living in low-income and poverty-stricken environments. Divergence in these findings from much of the evidence from high-income countries emphasises that context matters when considering the impact of genetic attribution on stigma and caution against generalising findings from one part of the globe to another.

The promise of public health ethics for precision medicine: the case of newborn preventive genomic sequencing

Precision medicine aims to tailor medical treatment to match individual characteristics and to stratify individuals to concentrate benefits and avoid harm. It has recently been joined by precision public health-the application of precision medicine at population scale to decrease morbidity and optimise population health. Newborn preventive genomic sequencing (NPGS) provides a helpful case study to consider how we should approach ethical questions in precision public health. In this paper, I use NPGS as a case in point to argue that both precision medicine and precision public health need public health ethics. I make this argument in two parts. First, I claim that discussions of ethics in precision medicine and NPGS tend to focus on predominantly individualistic concepts from medical ethics such as autonomy and empowerment. This highlights some deficiencies, including overlooking that choice is subject to constraints and that an individual's place in the world might impact their capacity to 'be responsible'. Second, I make the case for using a public health ethics approach when considering ethics and NPGS, and thus precision public health more broadly. I discuss how precision public health needs to be construed as a collective enterprise and not just as an aggregation of individual interests. I also show how analysing collective values and interests through concepts such as solidarity can enrich ethical discussion of NPGS and highlight previously overlooked issues. With this approach, bioethics can contribute to more just and more appropriate applications of precision medicine and precision public health, including NPGS.

"It's all about delivery": researchers and health professionals' views on the moral challenges of accessing neurobiological information in the context of psychosis

Background

The convergence of neuroscience, genomics, and data science holds promise to unveil the neurobiology of psychosis and to produce new ways of preventing, diagnosing, and treating psychotic illness. Yet, moral challenges arise in neurobiological research and in the clinical translation of research findings. This article investigates the views of relevant actors in mental health on the moral challenges of accessing neurobiological information in the context of psychosis.

Methods

Semi-structured individual interviews with two groups: researchers employed in the National Health Service (NHS) or a university in England (n = 14), and mental health professionals employed in NHS mental health services (n = 14). This article compares results in the two groups (total n = 28).

Results

This article presents findings around three conceptual areas: (1) research ethics as mostly unproblematic, (2) psychosis, neurobiological information, and mental health care, and (3) identity, relationships, and the future. These areas are drawn from the themes and topics that emerged in the interviews across the two groups of participants. Researchers and health professionals provided similar accounts of the moral challenges of accessing—which includes acquisition, communication, and use of—neurobiological information in the context of psychosis. Acquiring neurobiological information was perceived as mostly unproblematic, provided ethical safeguards are put in place. Conversely, participants argued that substantive moral challenges arise from how neurobiological information is delivered—that is, communicated and used—in research and in clinical care. Neurobiological information was seen as a powerful tool in the process through which individuals define their identity and establish personal and clinical goals. The pervasiveness of this narrative tool may influence researchers and health professionals’ perception of ethical principles and moral obligations.

Conclusions

This study suggests that the moral challenges that arise from accessing neurobiological information in the context of psychosis go beyond traditional research and clinical ethics concerns. Reflecting on how accessing neurobiological information can influence individual self-narratives will be vital to ensure the ethical translation of neuroscience and genomics into mental health.

Trial registration

The study did not involve a health care intervention on human participants. It was retrospectively registered on 11 July 2018, registration number: researchregistry4255.

Exploring how a genetic attribution to disease relates to stigma experiences of Xhosa patients with schizophrenia in South Africa

BACKGROUND

Over the past three decades, a range of international stakeholders have highlighted the possibility that genomic research may impact stigma associated with psychiatric disorders. Limited research has been conducted in Africa to investigate this relation.

METHOD

In the present study, using focus group discussions, we explored the relation between genetic attribution and stigma among 36 Xhosa people with schizophrenia. We addressed three main questions: (1) What causal beliefs do Xhosa people with schizophrenia use to explain their illness and to what extent do genetic explanations play a role in these beliefs? (2) What are the internalised stigma experiences of Xhosa people with schizophrenia? (3) How do genetic explanations relate to stigma experiences, if at all?

RESULTS

Most participants were able to define genetics and some linked genetics to disease causation. Despite adequate knowledge of genetics and an emphasis on genetic explanations of schizophrenia in the study, most participants held a multitude of causal explanations including: psychosocial, environmental, and cultural. Moreover, participants rarely mentioned disease cause when describing their stigma experiences.

DISCUSSION

For this population group, there was no straight-forward relation between a genetic attribution and stigma. Therefore, we did not find evidence that genetic attribution may significantly increase stigma. Although North American and European literature provides conflicting evidence regarding this relation, there is increased consensus that biomedical explanations for psychiatric disorders may reduce blame. This study found evidence supporting that consensus. This study provides an empirical foundation to inform ongoing work on the psychosocial implications of psychiatric genomics research in non-Western contexts.

Ethical issues in global neuroimaging genetics collaborations

Neuroimaging genetics is a rapidly developing field that combines neuropsychiatric genetics studies with imaging modalities to investigate how genetic variation influences brain structure and function. As both genetic and imaging technologies improve further, their combined power may hold translational potential in terms of improving psychiatric nosology, diagnosis, and treatment. While neuroimaging genetics studies offer a number of scientific advantages, they also face challenges. In response to some of these challenges, global neuroimaging genetics collaborations have been created to pool and compare brain data and replicate study findings. Attention has been paid to ethical issues in genetics, neuroimaging, and multi-site collaborative research, respectively, but there have been few substantive discussions of the ethical issues generated by the confluence of these areas in global neuroimaging genetics collaborations. Our discussion focuses on two areas: benefits and risks of global neuroimaging genetics collaborations and the potential impact of neuroimaging genetics research findings in low- and middle-income countries. Global neuroimaging genetics collaborations have the potential to enhance relations between countries and address global mental health challenges, however there are risks regarding inequity, exploitation and data sharing. Moreover, neuroimaging genetics research in low- and middle-income countries must address the issue of feedback of findings and the risk of essentializing and stigmatizing interpretations of mental disorders. We conclude by examining how the notion of solidarity, informed by an African Ethics framework, may justify some of the suggestions made in our discussion.

Psychosis, vulnerability, and the moral significance of biomedical innovation in psychiatry. Why ethicists should join efforts

The study of the neuroscience and genomics of mental illness are increasingly intertwined. This is mostly due to the translation of medical technologies into psychiatry and to technological convergence. This article focuses on psychosis. I argue that the convergence of neuroscience and genomics in the context of psychosis is morally problematic, and that ethics scholarship should go beyond the identification of a number of ethical, legal, and social issues. My argument is composed of two strands. First, I argue that we should respond to technological convergence by developing an integrated, patient-centred approach focused on the assessment of individual vulnerabilities. Responding to technological convergence requires that we (i) integrate insights from several areas of ethics, (ii) translate bioethical principles into the mental health context, and (iii) proactively try to anticipate future ethical concerns. Second, I argue that a nuanced understanding of the concept of vulnerability might help us to accomplish this task. I borrow Florencia Luna's notion of 'layers of vulnerability' to show how potential harms or wrongs to individuals who experience psychosis can be conceptualised as stemming from different sources, or layers, of vulnerability. I argue that a layered notion of vulnerability might serve as a common ground to achieve the ethical integration needed to ensure that biomedical innovation can truly benefit, and not harm, individuals who suffer from psychosis.

Integrating Genomics into Psychiatric Practice: Ethical and Legal Challenges for Clinicians

Psychiatric genomics is a rapidly growing field that holds much promise for improving risk prediction, prevention, diagnosis, treatment selection, and understanding of the pathogenesis of patients' symptoms. The field of psychiatry (i.e., professional organizations, mental health clinicians, educational institutions), however, needs to address numerous challenges to promote the responsible translation of genomic technologies and knowledge into psychiatric practice. The goal of this article is to review how clinicians currently encounter and use genomics in the clinic, to summarize the existing literature on how clinicians feel about the use of genomics in psychiatry, and to analyze foreseeable ethical and legal challenges for the responsible integration of genomics into psychiatric care at the structural and clinic levels. Structural challenges are defined as aspects of the larger system of psychiatric practice that constitute potential barriers to the responsible integration of genomics for the purposes of psychiatric care and prevention. These structural challenges exist at a level where professional groups can intervene to set standards and regulate the practice of psychiatry and genomics. Clinic-level challenges are day-to-day issues clinicians face when managing genomic tests in the clinic. We discuss the need for action to mitigate these challenges and maximize the clinical and social utility of psychiatric genomics, including the following: expanding genomics training among mental health clinicians; establishing practice guidelines that consider potential clinical, psychological, and social implications of psychiatric genomics; promoting an integrated care model for managing genomics in psychiatry; emphasizing patient engagement and informed consent when managing genomic testing in psychiatric care.

The ethics of global psychiatric genomics: Multilayered challenges to integrating genomics in global mental health and disability-A position paper of the Oxford Global Initiative in Neuropsychiatric GenEthics (NeuroGenE)

Psychiatric genomics has the potential to radically improve the prevention and early intervention of serious mental and neurodevelopmental disorders worldwide. However, little work has been done on the ethics of psychiatric genomics-an oversight that could result in poor local uptake, reduced practical/clinical application, and ethical violations in this rapidly developing area of scientific research. As part of the Global Project of the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research, the Global Initiative in Neuropsychiatric GenEthics (NeuroGenE) based at the University of Oxford aims to embed ethical inquiry within scientific investigation and engage with fundamental ethical questions around a psychiatric genomics approach to mental and neurodevelopmental disorder. This position paper sets out the core aims of the NeuroGenE research programme and explores the importance of a crosscutting research orientation in this field based on multidisciplinary methodologies which can ensure that efforts to translate and apply global psychiatric genomics in public policy and clinical practice are ethically grounded strategies, respectful of different cultures and contexts.

Ethical dangers of facial phenotyping through photography in psychiatric genomics studies

Psychiatric genomics research protocols are increasingly incorporating tools of deep phenotyping to observe and examine phenotypic abnormalities among individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders. In particular, photography and the use of two-dimensional and three-dimensional facial analysis is thought to shed further light on the phenotypic expression of the genes underlying neurodevelopmental disorders, as well as provide potential diagnostic tools for clinicians. In this paper, I argue that the research use of photography to aid facial phenotyping raises deeply fraught issues from an ethical point of view. First, the process of objectification through photographic imagery and facial analysis could potentially worsen the stigmatisation of persons with neurodevelopmental disorders. Second, the use of photography for facial phenotyping has worrying parallels with the historical misuse of photography to advance positive and negative eugenics around race, ethnicity and intellectual disability. The paper recommends ethical caution in the use of photography and facial phenotyping in psychiatric genomics studies exploring neurodevelopmental disorders, outlining certain necessary safeguards, such as a critical awareness of the history of anthropometric photography use among scientists, as well as the exploration of photographic methodologies that could potentially empower individuals with disabilities.

Does genetics matter for disease-related stigma? The impact of genetic attribution on stigma associated with rheumatic heart disease in the Western Cape, South Africa

INTRODUCTION

A common concern in African genomic research is that such work may cause, or increase, stigma associated with particular diseases or population groups. While there is some evidence suggesting that genetic attribution of disease might impact stigma, there exists no evidence for the situation in African populations. With increasing genomic research in African populations, questions about the effect of genetic attribution on disease-related stigma are salient for stakeholders involved in implementation and regulation. To understand better the relationship between stigma and genetic attribution, we interviewed people with Rheumatic Heart Disease (RHD) in the Western Cape of South Africa.

METHOD

We conducted 11 focus group discussions with RHD patients of mixed-ancestry in the Western Cape, exploring the impact of genetic attribution on stigma. Participants had previously consented to participate in genomic research, attending information sessions on genetics. We explored the impact of genetic attribution by introducing both genetic and environmental causes to RHD and by specifically probing how these various causes would likely impact selected features of disease stigma.

RESULTS

Participants reported varying experiences of stigma relating to RHD, such as labelling, social exclusion and discrimination at the workplace. They had some understanding of genetics, either in general, or in relation to their illness. Participants' understanding depicted multiple causal models to explain RHD including genetic, environmental and bacterial causation. Overall, participants did not make a connection between genetics as a cause of RHD and their experiences of stigma.

DISCUSSION

In this study we found no support for the concern that genetic attribution of RHD, understood by participants in our study as a genetic predisposition to developing the disease, would impact stigma associated with it. Our findings provide some reassurance that genomic research may be unlikely to cause an increase in disease-related stigma in the South African context.

Psychiatric genomics researchers' perspectives on best practices for returning results to individual participants

Purpose

Large-scale array-based and sequencing studies have advanced our understanding of the genetic architecture of psychiatric disorders, but also increased the potential to generate an exponentially larger amount of clinically relevant findings. As genomic testing becomes more widespread in psychiatry research, urgency grows to establish best practices for offering return of results (RoR) to individuals at risk or diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder.

Methods

We interviewed an international sample (n = 39) of psychiatric genetics researchers to examine conceptualizations of “best practices” for RoR to individual research participants.

Results

While the vast majority of researchers do not offer RoR, most believed medically actionable findings (85%) and clinically valid but non–medically actionable findings (54%) should be offered. Researchers identified three main areas for improvement: interfacing with individual participants; interdisciplinary training, guidance, and integration; and quality planning and resource allocation for returning results.

Conclusion

There are significant gaps between researchers’ visions for “best” versus “actual” RoR practices. While researchers call for participant-centered practices, including consent practices that consider any special needs of participants with psychiatric disorders, return of individually meaningful results, and effective follow-up and provisions for treatment, the current reality is that consent and RoR practices lack standardized and evidence-based norms.

Preventing discrimination based on psychiatric risk biomarkers

Recent studies have identified genomic and nongenomic psychiatric risk biomarkers (PRBs; e.g., genomic variants, blood analytes, gray matter volume). PRBs may soon become a powerful tool for improving psychiatric care and prevention. PRB research and its translation to clinical care, however, may prove to be a double-edged sword. Mental health stigma and discrimination are already widespread, and data caution that biological explanations of psychiatric disorders can exacerbate these stigmatizing attitudes, increasing the desire for social distance and heightening the perceived dangerousness of the patient. As a reaction to the Human Genome Project and historical concerns about eugenics, the international community mobilized to establish legislation to prevent genomic discrimination. But in most countries, these laws are limited to few contexts (e.g., employment, health insurance), and very few countries protect against discrimination based on nongenomic risk biomarkers. Like genomic PRBs, nongenomic PRBs provide information regarding risk for stigmatized psychiatric disorders and have similar-and in some cases greater-predictive value. Numerous large-scale neuroscience and neurogenomics projects are advancing the identification and translation of PRBs. The prospect of PRB-based stigma however, threatens to undermine the potential benefits of this research. Unbridaled by nonexistent or limited PRB anti-discrimination protections, the threat of PRB-based stigma and discrimination may lead many to forego PRB testing, even if shown to have clinical utility. To maximize the clinical and social benefits of PRB-based technologies, educational campaigns should address mental health and PRB stigma, and lawmakers should carefully consider expanding legislation that prohibits PRB-based discrimination.

Potential use of clinical polygenic risk scores in psychiatry - ethical implications and communicating high polygenic risk

Psychiatric disorders present distinct clinical challenges which are partly attributable to their multifactorial aetiology and the absence of laboratory tests that can be used to confirm diagnosis or predict risk. Psychiatric disorders are highly heritable, but also polygenic, with genetic risk conferred by interactions between thousands of variants of small effect that can be summarized in a polygenic risk score. We discuss four areas in which the use of polygenic risk scores in psychiatric research and clinical contexts could have ethical implications. First, there is concern that clinical use of polygenic risk scores may exacerbate existing health inequities. Second, research findings regarding polygenic risk could be misinterpreted in stigmatising or discriminatory ways. Third, there are concerns associated with testing minors as well as eugenics concerns elicited by prenatal polygenic risk testing. Fourth, potential challenges that could arise with the feedback and interpretation of high polygenic risk for a psychiatric disorder would require consideration. While there would be extensive overlap with the challenges of feeding back genetic findings in general, the potential clinical use of polygenic risk scoring warrants discussion in its own right, given the recency of this possibility. To this end, we discuss how lay interpretations of risk and genetic information could intersect. Consideration of these factors would be necessary for ensuring effective and constructive communication and interpretation of polygenic risk information which, in turn, could have implications for the uptake of any therapeutic recommendations. Recent advances in polygenic risk scoring have major implications for its clinical potential, however, care should be taken to ensure that communication of polygenic risk does not feed into problematic assumptions regarding mental disorders or support reductive interpretations.

Biomedical Explanations of Psychopathology and Their Implications for Attitudes and Beliefs About Mental Disorders

Mental disorders are increasingly conceptualized as biomedical diseases, explained as manifestations of genetic and neurobiological abnormalities. Here, we discuss changes in the dominant explanatory accounts of psychopathology that have occurred over time and the driving forces behind these shifts, lay out some real-world evidence for the increasing ascendancy of biomedical explanations, and provide an overview of the types of attitudes and beliefs that may be affected by them. We examine theoretical and conceptual models that are relevant to understanding how biomedical conceptualizations might affect attitudes and beliefs about mental disorders, and we review some empirical evidence that bears on this question. Finally, we examine possible strategies for combatting potential negative effects of biomedical explanations and discuss important conclusions and directions for future research.

Predictive Psychiatric Genetic Testing in Minors: An Exploration of the Non-Medical Benefits

Predictive genetic testing for susceptibility to psychiatric conditions is likely to become part of standard practice. Because the onset of most psychiatric diseases is in late adolescence or early adulthood, testing minors could lead to early identification that may prevent or delay the development of these disorders. However, due to their complex aetiology, psychiatric genetic testing does not provide the immediate medical benefits that current guidelines require for testing minors. While several authors have argued non-medical benefits may play a crucial role in favour of predictive testing for other conditions, little research has explored such a role in psychiatric disorders. This paper outlines the potential non-medical benefits and harms of psychiatric genetic testing in minors in order to consider whether the non-medical benefits could ever make such testing appropriate. Five non-medical themes arise in the literature: psychological impacts, autonomy/self-determination, implications of the biomedical approach, use of financial and intellectual resources, and discrimination. Non-medical benefits were prominent in all of them, suggesting that psychiatric genetic testing in minors may be appropriate in some circumstances. Further research needs to empirically assess these potential non-medical benefits, incorporate minors in the debate, and include normative reflection to evaluate the very purposes and motivations of psychiatric genetic testing in minors.

The Future Emerges from the Past : Comment on "Personal Genomic Testing, Genetic Inheritance, and Uncertainty"

The case of Jordan (Mason 2017) highlights the gamble of connecting with the past through genomic testing. Unfortunately for Jordan, his genomic testing identified two variant genes which account for up to 75 per cent of early-onset Alzheimer's disease cases. Furthermore, his children were identified as having a 50 per cent risk of inheriting the gene which corresponds to the majority of early-onset Alzheimer's disease cases. Now Jordan is not only burdened with the foreknowledge that he will most likely develop Alzheimer's disease at a relatively young age but also burdened with the knowledge that his children may share his fate. Jordan was overwhelmed by his attempts to understand the genetic tests and experienced substantial distress. This response highlights the need for industry-wide regulations that adequately prepare individuals for the decision of whether to initiate genomic testing and require the results to be interpreted with genetic counsellors or other suitably skilled doctors. Furthermore, these industry-wide regulations need to be accountable to the same evidence-based standards that regulate the rest of the medical professions.

Beneficial and detrimental effects of genetic explanations for addiction

BACKGROUND

Addictions are highly stigmatized and increasingly construed as biomedical diseases caused by genes, partly to reduce stigma by deflecting blame. However, genetic explanations may have negative effects, which have been understudied in the context of addiction. How the effects of genetic explanations might differ for substance addictions versus behavioral addictions is also unknown.

AIMS

This study examined the impact of genetic explanations for addiction on measures of treatment expectancies, blame, and perceived agency and self-control, as well as whether these varied depending on whether the addiction was to a substance or a behavior.

METHODS

Participants read about a person ('Charlie') with either alcohol use disorder or gambling disorder, receiving either a genetic or nongenetic explanation of Charlie's problem. They rated how much they blamed Charlie for his disorder, his likelihood of benefitting from medication or psychotherapy, and how much agency and self-control they ascribed to him.

RESULTS

Compared to the nongenetic explanation, the genetic explanation reduced blame and increased confidence in the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy. However, it also decreased the expected effectiveness of psychotherapy and reduced ascriptions of agency and self-control.

CONCLUSION

Genetic explanations for addiction appear to be a 'double-edged sword', with beneficial effects that come at a cost.