Els de Genomics Law Report expliquen el que ha passat a les compareixences recents. Si n'esteu interessats feu-hi una ullada.
Les preguntes clau:
Should the agency require proof of analytical validity, clinical validity and/or clinical utility prior to approving a particular test and, if so, what standards of proof should be required?I mentrestant per aquí, les veiem passar...i ens costen una pasta...
Should the agency regulate tests SNP-by-SNP, claim-by-claim or test-by-test, and what should be done to prepare for the inevitable arrival of tests based on whole-genome sequence data?
Should the agency oversee the labeling and advertising claims offered by companies in association with such tests?
Should the agency require companies to collect and submit data regarding the post-test benefits and harms and the actual (as compared to intended) uses of their tests?
Should the agency impose requirements on companies to prevent unauthorized testing, protect data privacy and limit companies’ ability to share genetic information without their customers’ consent?
While these questions, and countless more, will be critical to the development of sensible genetic testing regulation, one question clearly generates more and more emotional responses than any other:
Should regulators require some or all genetic tests to be routed through a clinician, or should tests be made available directly to consumers who desire them?
PD. El gran Ferran Torrent representa una alenada d'aire fresc els diumenges, tant en directe a Rac1 com els comentaris a ARA. Cita Josep Renau: "Quan arribes a València i et menges una paella o una sípia t'oblides de la lluita de classes". I mentrestant els de FT ens recorden que "Valencia is burning"