NHS is planning genetically testing all newborns sounds wise – until they create patients who are not infirmed

Until 2030, every child born in England can have their own The whole genome seven as part of the up-to-date NHS initiative “Predict and prevent the disease”. It would dramatically expand the current heel test, which checks nine uncommon genetic conditions, to a much more extensive screen of hundreds of potential threats.

At first glance, the idea sounds like a obvious win for public health: early point problems, intervening earlier and save life. But genetic tests on this scale carries a real risk, especially if the results are misunderstood or misunderstood.

The up-to-date plan is based on the last NHS pilot test This has sequentized the genomes of 100,000 newborns in England to identify over 200 genetic conditions. However, these tests do not provide clear answers. They do not offer diagnosis or certainty, but estimation of risk.

The genetic result may suggest that the child has a greater (or lower) probability of developing a certain disease in later life. But the risk is not a forecast. If parents and even clinicians incorrectly interpret this nuance, the consequences can be grave.

Some families can look at a child marked as “threatened” as a patient. In extreme cases, they may treat the probability as certainty; Assuming, for example, that the child “has a gene” and will inevitably get infirmed. This assumption can transform how to raise children, how they are treated and how they could see.

Alarming

This is not speculation. Research shows that although some people understand the results of risk, exactly, Many are struggling with statistical information. Words such as “high risk” or “likely” are interpreted differently by different people and Often more serious than intended. Even Trained doctors can overestimate which means a positive test result. When it comes to genomics, the border between “you can get infirmed” and “you get infirmed” can blur quickly.

Decision -makers did not support in this confusion. Government messages refers to “Diagnosis against symptoms in general” AND “Skipping disease”. But this language passes excessively, what genomic data can do and disregards its uncertainty.

When testing is uncritical and the communication is unclear, the precipitation may be wide. Children identified as “high risk” can undergo years of monitoring, unnecessary medical visits, and even treatment of diseases that they never develop. In some cases, this leads to physical damage, from unnecessary drugs to procedures with side effects. Other damage is psychological: shaping the child’s identity around the anticipated future of the disease. These psychological effects can be lasting. It has been said that you would probably develop a state like dementia It can affect how a person plans his lifeEven if the disease never materializes.

False positives

There are also broader problems related to the employ of this type of screening for everyone. Risk -based tests work best when targeted; For example, among people with symptoms or a robust family history. But in the general population, where most people are robust, False positives It can significantly exceed the exact results. Even well -designed tests can bring misleading results after using on a scale.

This is A well -known statistical effectIN discussed during the pandemic due to confusion. In populations where the disease is uncommon, even very thorough tests produce more false positives than true. If the DNA test is widely implemented, many families will be said that their child is threatened when not. These false positives can lead to a cascade of further tests, stress and unnecessary clinical interventions; All of which employ time and resources and can cause real damage.

This problem already affects adult tests. For example, Alzheimer’s tests that measure early changes in the brain, work well in memory clinics where patients already show symptoms. But when the same tests are used in the general population, where most people are robust, they produce falsely positive in a maximum of two -thirds of cases. If genetic screening in newborns is introduced in the same way, this can lead to similar problems: misleading robust children as infirmed and causing unnecessary tests of worries and subsequent ones.

So what is the solution? It is not about completely abandoning genetic tests – far from this. In the case of carefully used, genomic data can offer real benefits, especially in patients with symptoms or in research conditions. But if we intend to give it to every newborne, the surrounding infrastructure must be solid.

This includes:

• Clear, coherent communication: Risk results should be explained in a way that emphasizes uncertainty, not sold out as final forecasts.

• Support for parents: To become a real informing, parents need to understand that the genetic flag is not a diagnosis – and that many people at high risk never develop this condition.

• Training for clinicians: Many doctors still have no tools for interpretation and explanation of right and responsible genetic information.

• National network of genetic advisors Genetic advisors are necessary to support families by testing and interpreting. But the current numbers in England are not in the sense, which would require universal research of a newborn baby.

Genomic data is a great promise. But using it as a vocabulary tool for all newborns requires caution, clarity and investment in communication and care. Without these security, we risk transforming robust children into the expected patients.

Correction: The earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that every child born in Great Britain could have been semented with genes as part of the up-to-date NHS initiative. In fact, the initiative only applies to England.