Researchers will spend $25 million in federal funds over the next five years assessing the effectiveness and ethical implications of making genetic testing of newborns a new delivery room standard.


Launched by the National Institutes of Health[1] last month, the study will be divided into four projects at the University of California, San Francisco, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Mass., Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Mo., and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.


Should genetic testing become standard, it will build upon routine blood testing of newborns[2] . The blood testing was introduced in the 1960s as a way for parents to learn if their infants have any conditions that can be banished if treated early on, including several developmental delays.


But the answers held in blood testing are limited, say researchers, and there is a higher possibility for false positives.


“Genomic sequencing has the potential to diagnose a vast array of disorders and conditions at the very start of life,” Alan E. Guttmacher, director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said in a press release. But he also emphasized the importance of weighing the moral implications of letting parents in on conditions their children might develop later in life.


“The ability to decipher an individual’s genetic code rapidly also brings with it a host of clinical and ethical issues[3] , which is why it is important that this program explores the trio of technical, clinical and ethical aspects of genomics research in the newborn period,” he said.


Some scientists worry such early health forecasts, especially for untreatable or unpreventable conditions, might negatively influence how children are parented.



“I think there’s actually greater harm than good to be telling parents that a child has a three- or four-fold increased risk for a late-onset disorder for which we currently have no therapy,” UCSF geneticist Bob Nussbaum told KQED, citing Alzheimer’s disease as an example.


Nussbaum cautioned that parents of children flagged for later health risks “are perhaps afraid to institute the same level of discipline. They may treat one of those children differently than the siblings. You’ve introduced a psychological issue[4] .”


To evaluate the ethics in genetic testing, bioethicists will evaluate participating parents’ willingness to be informed of health risks their children are likely to face later in life.


Study participant Holly Sloan, a nurse in Virginia, told the Star Tribune that the possibility of implementing effective lifestyle changes for her daughter early on made the study worth the risks.


"If it was something that we could hopefully prevent through diet or exercise[5] or some kind of lifestyle change, we could start with that as early as possible," she said. "I guess I'm just the type of person, I would rather know and address it."


Parents already have the opportunity to have genetic tests done through private companies. 23andMe employee Catherine Afarian purchased one of the DNA-analysis company’s tests for her son, and discovered he had an increased risk for Parkinson’s Disease[6] . With that knowledge, she says she plans to pay special attention to Parkinson’s studies and donate money to Parkinson’s research.



Also on HuffPost:




Loading Slideshow...



  • Their Baby Cuteness Doesn't Predict Adult Attractiveness


    A study published in the journal <em>Infant Behavior & Development</em> revealed that the standard "<a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch?v%3DXTV8bOv3Jhs&ei=0uLBToKrMuPu0gHkmNH0BA&usg=AFQjCNFtutJJhlTFZJ2fm-cmsDo46XMpzw" target="_hplink">You Must Have Been a Beautiful Baby</a>" has little to do with reality. When 253 college students were asked to rank photos of the same individuals as infants and young adults (without being told who was who), there was <a href="http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/31/7542626-must-have-been-a-beautiful-baby-maybe-not" target="_hplink">no relationship between how cute the students found the babies and how attractive they found the grown-ups</a>.




  • They're Good At Sharing


    No, really, it's true. It doesn't matter how many times you've heard the shout "Mine!" -- research shows babies can sense fairness at 15 months.

    During one study at the <a href="http://www.washington.edu/news/articles/babies-show-sense-of-fairness-altruism-as-early-as-15-months-1" target="_hplink">University of Washington</a>, 47 babies observed videos of an experimenter distributing milk and crackers to two people. When one recipient received more food than the other, the babies paid more attention. That means they had expected a fair distribution.

    The researchers also found that babies who did notice unfairness were more likely to share their own toys.




  • They Read Minds


    OK, so they're not exactly psychic. But a <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111101130204.htm" target="_hplink">recent study</a> from the University of Missouri found that babies just 10 months old are starting to follow the thought processes of others. Yuyan Luo, an associate professor of developmental psychology who conducted the study, tells The Huffington Post, "Babies, like adults, when they see something for the first time -- when something is surprising -- they look for a long time. It shows [they recognize] something is inconsistent."

    It's called the "violation of expectation," she explained. When babies are surprised by something or notice something unexpected has happened, they tend to gaze at that thing longer. In Luo's research, babies watched actors consistently choose object A (such as a block or a cylinder) over object B. When an actor then switched to object B, the babies stared for about five to six seconds longer, meaning they recognized the change in preference.




  • They're A Little Bit Racist


    Don't judge a book by its cover. Treat all people the same. We're all equals. These are sentiments parents strive to teach their kids from a very young age. And they should. Starting, like, immediately. Researchers at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom found that babies at three months <a href="http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060212_racefrm2.htm" target="_hplink">begin showing a preference for the faces of people of their own race</a>.

    But not all hope for equality is lost. The same study showed that babies who are exposed to people of all different races are less likely to develop bias at such an early age.




  • The Rhythm Is Gonna Get Them


    Researchers from Brigham Young University found that five-month-old babies can <a href=" http://news.byu.edu/archive08-oct-babymusic.aspx" target="_hplink">identify an upbeat song as being different from a series of sad, slow songs</a>.

    In other words, they are happy. They know it. They will clap their hands. Or stare longer, as the case may be. The experimenters showed babies an emotionless face while music played. When they played a new sad song, the babies looked away. When the music pepped up, the babies stared for three to four seconds longer.




  • They Can Tell The Good Guy From The Bad Guy


    Babies have a sense of morality at six months old, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275574/Babies-know-difference-good-evil-months-study-reveals.html" target="_hplink">say Yale researchers</a>.

    During the Yale study, babies watched a puppet show in which a wooden shape with eyes tried to climb a hill over and over again. Sometimes a second puppet helped him up the hill, and other times a third puppet pushed him down.

    After watching the act several times, the babies were presented with both puppets. They showed a clear preference for the good characters over the bad ones by reaching to play with the good puppet.




  • They Can Read Lips ... Kind Of


    Dr. Janet Werker of the University of British Columbia, who studies how babies perceive language, found that if a mother spoke two languages while pregnant, her infant could <a href="http://www.livescience.com/13016-bilingual-babies-brain-language-learning.html" target="_hplink">recognize the difference</a> between the two.

    And they don't even have to be spoken out loud. Werker's research found that infants four to six months old can <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/health/views/11klass.html" target="_hplink">visually discriminate two languages</a> when watching muted videos of someone speaking both.