Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: thedoc on 16/09/2015 23:20:54
-
Professor John Wright leads the Born in Bradford study, involving thousands
of families across the city, aiming to improve their health.
Read a transcript of the interview by clicking here (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/interviews/interview/1001441/)
or [chapter podcast=1001154 track=15.09.14/Naked_Genetics_15.09.14_1004069.mp3](https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenakedscientists.com%2FHTML%2Ftypo3conf%2Fext%2Fnaksci_podcast%2Fgnome-settings-sound.gif&hash=f2b0d108dc173aeaa367f8db2e2171bd) Listen to it now[/chapter] or [download as MP3] (http://nakeddiscovery.com/downloads/split_individual/15.09.14/Naked_Genetics_15.09.14_1004069.mp3)
-
The increased risk of Hepatitis B in southeast Asians was not discovered by genetics, but plain old epidemiology. in point of fact this is a rehash of the Framingham study dressed up with bright shiny genetics research.
Suppose Britain adopted universal genomic screening for all neonates? How much would that cost -- in times when the NHS is hardly able to function?
Plain old "shoe leather" epidemiological research has served well since Dr. Snow took the handle off the Broad Street pump and stopped a cholera outbreak. He did that with a pencil and a sheet of paper.
So what is the value of this research compared to epidemiology?
Genetic research as a matter of pathophysiology is well and good. It shouldn't be flogged as a replacement for cheaper methods of epidemiological research.
You can take that from the holder of California Public Health Nurse license 26912
-
Did you listen to the interview?
The reason for a cohort study was carefully explained: it avoids any bias that might (indeed certainly will) influence a retrospective epidemiological study. Quite different from John Snow, who was looking for the cause of a single disease. The BBC broadcast an excellent dramatisation of Snow's work a couple of years ago, which highlighted the role of the brewer's wife - often forgotten in reviews of the parish pump affair.
I too doubt the value of a lot of genetic research: gene therapy hasn't been a raging success, and being told that you have a genetic suceptibility to breast cancer doesn't predict the individual outcome or cure the disease. Screening of neonates is a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has departed: it may have predictive value for individual cases but the incidence of genetic anomalies that are severe enough to impact the public purse is so low and so consistent that service demand can be adequately predicted, and must be provided ad hoc anyway.
I have a lot of respect for genetic counsellors, but unless you can institute 100% genetic screening for all fertile couples, it does seem to be something of a minority service for those who already know that they are likely to pass on a significant anomaly.
-
Financial problems 'now endemic' in NHS England, says King's Fund.
Leading thinktank’s survey of financial directors finds two-thirds of all NHS trusts are forecasting deficits, even the most prestigious and well-run hospitals.
Patients in England face poorer NHS and social care, including longer waiting times, because of the financial “black hole” that looms over hospitals and other services, says a leading thinktank.
- The Gaurdian. July 2, 2015
I fail to see why anybody but a person with supratentorial insufficiency or a heartless shifty-eyed weasel would try to justify the additional cost burden -- and subsequent deterioration of care for working class Britons -- that universal genomic reading of neonates would incur.
Epidemiological research identifies specific instances where genetic testing is warranted. Universal genomic screening would only serve to further line the pockets of those clinicians who already have both hooves in the NHS trough.
*****************
While i was working on my 40 meter dipole, the following question has occurred to me, "How will Professor Wright and the Naked Scientists guarantee the confidentiality of these infants' genetic record?"
Do you even begin to trust that they can? Will these children be denied life insurance , employment or who knows what -- once this information is leaked?
So add the risk of future discrimination to the reasons this medically unnecessary and expensive idea of universal genetic screening of neonates belongs in the round file
-
Let me assure you that confidentiality will not be guaranteed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10656893/Hospital-records-of-all-NHS-patients-sold-to-insurers.html
If there's money to be made, a Tory government will sell anything - especially stuff they don't own.