Category Archives: Robert Resta

by | April 11, 2011 · 10:13 PM

L’histoire de p et q: Urban Myths of Cytogenetics

Karyotypes are sooooo 20th century. Time was when a ripe crop of G-banded chromosomes promised a fruitful harvest of genetic secrets. But nowadays a Giemsa-stained karyotype seems like a quaint low resolution black and white TV set – those cute little D & G groups even have rabbit-ear antennas – compared with the bright, sexy colors of FISH, the fine oligonucleotide detail of microarrays, and the dense volumes of data of generated by high throughput DNA sequencing.

But before all that trypsin, calf serum, and Giemsa stain sails off in a T-25 culture flask to navigate the seas of our mythic memories, some cytogenetic stories need to be told. The tale I want to relate started with an email from Debbie Collins, one of our Kansas City genetic counseling colleagues.

“I went to a lecture today,” Debbie’s email began, “and learned how the chromosome’s short and long arms came to be called p & q.” She then related a story that was completely different than what I had always held to be true.

Debbie’s email got me into a Rudyard Kipling frame of mind. Just how did the chromosome get its name? As it turns out, probably neither Debbie’s story nor my story is true. I searched for the “real” answer in standard genetics textbooks and PubMed, but to no avail. So I unscientifically queried geneticists and cytogeneticists of various stripes and ages about how they thought “p” & “q” came to be the official chromosomal designations. Here are their stories, with annotations by me:

1)    The French Connection. This was the most popular version in my unofficial survey.  In this story, “p” stands for petite, the French word for “short.” The long arm came to be called “q” because “q” follows “p” in the alphabet. But that seems inconsistent. Why would one chromosomal arm be named after a word and the other arm named after a letter? It would be more logical to call the long arm “g” for grande, French for “big” or “large.”

2)    Francophones vs. Anglophones. In this version, the French in fact wanted to go avec “p” et “g”. Mais l’English speaking contingent objected to the French conquering the entire chromosome, apparently still harboring some nationalistic resentment nine centuries after The Norman Conquest. The Anglophones held out for “q” because, they claimed, “q” follows “p” (see The French Connection above). But really “q” appears English and also had the quality of making “p” evoke English rather than French. Even though it gave the appearance of a civilized linguistic compromise in which both sides got to name half of a chromosome, victoire pour les Anglais. Hastings avenged!

3)    The New York Typesetter’s Error. This is the version Debbie Collins related to me. The 1971 Paris conferees recommended “p” and “g” á la petite et grande. The nomenclature was reported in 1972 in Birth Defects: Original Article Series, which was published in New York City. A mythical typesetter inadvertently confused “g” for “q”.  The mistake was noticed after the issue had gone to press, too late for correction.

Great story, which caters to our stereotypes of New Yorkers’ penchant for giving language a unique twist. Sadly, though, it is not likely true. First off, I’ve never met a cytogeneticist who was not pathologically detail-oriented, and there is no way they would ever let an error like that get beyond the earliest stages. But more tellingly, although the Paris Conference indeed recommended “p” and “q”, these designations were in use at least 5 years before the 1971 meeting.

4)    The Hardy-Weinberg Equilbrium. As one source quoted to me, all geneticists know that p + q = 1. This has nice poetic and historical resonance . But it sounds too pat to be true. Somehow, I can’t imagine a sober-minded committee thinking this up, and then everyone agreeing to it (or perhaps they weren’t sober). Besides, what does cytogenetics have to do with the Hardy-Weinberg Law?

After spending an inordinate amount of time on PubMed, I think that I have narrowed down the start of the p/q story to the Chicago Conference in 1966, also published in Birth Defects: Original Article Series (I have to admit, though, that I have been unable to obtain a copy of this publication. If anybody is willing to send me an electronic or print copy, I would be forever indebted). The 1960 Denver Conference, by the way, makes no reference to “p” & “q.”

Which story do you think is true?  History is essentially the stories about our past that we have come to believe to be true. So let us choose our history systematically and democratically, rather than leaving it to the confabulations of story tellers or the biased views of the powerful. We can create the truth by popular vote, rather than simply relying on bothersome facts. Use the polling box below to vote for your favorite story so we can settle on the official History of Chromosome Nomenclature. Please, no stuffing the ballot box to ensure that your favorite theory wins; I have ways of finding this out and I will hunt you down. It would also be fun to hear other theories that I may have overlooked, so please use the Comments section to add to the list of Urban Legends of Cytogenetics.

See the follow-up to this posting on the DNA Exchange: “p+q = Solved, Being The True Story of How the Chromosome Got Its Name.”

Thanks to Debbie Collins, Alex Minna Stern, and Nathaniel Comfort for helpful discussions.


8 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | February 7, 2011 · 11:08 PM

A Lover’s Lament: What If We Stopped Seeing Each Other?

Your head says forget it
But your heart’s still smokin’

-Joni Mitchell, “You Turn Me On, I’m A Radio”

I love my profession. My heart belongs to my wife, but that’s a different sort of love.* I love my job because it affords me the privilege of being admitted into the deep recesses of patients’ emotional landscapes as they make complicated decisions and experience life-altering events. And I love genetic counseling because it let’s me believe that my skills and education are making a dent in this hard, hard world. I hope that I am helping reduce the emotional and physical suffering from genetic disease and that I make patients’ lives better in small or big ways.

Or perhaps I am  unrealistically romantic. It could be that for many patients genetic counseling doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Maybe I get more out of this relationship than they do.

Intimate relationships are, by their nature, plagued by doubt. But unexplored doubt only festers. So let me ask  a very difficult question: Would it make a heck of a lot of difference to the world if the profession of genetic counseling abruptly vanished? Who would notice?

We like to think that we are critical to Mission Healthcare. And no doubt we can all supply a fistful of anecdotes to support our case. This patient was given inaccurate information by her physician and almost had an unnecessary mastectomy before she saw me. Or  how about that physician who told the patient she had Huntington disease when in fact she had a normal number of repeats? That poor woman was beside herself. A patient last week said I was the only one who could help her come to grips with her child’s diagnosis, and she finally felt like she and her husband could get on with the business of being a family again. And then there was that evil dragon of an insurance company I slew the other day.

To be sure, these anecdotes are important to me; they keep my heart smokin’. But my head asks “How do we know that somebody else couldn’t do our job as well, if not better, or that our jobs are even necessary?” Where are the studies that compare genetic counselors to other healthcare providers, or  to smart phone apps for that matter? There are a few studies, but they are limited by small sample sizes or questionable outcome measures like information recall and anxiety. Which genetic counseling patient isn’t rightly anxious and wouldn’t it be more useful to help them cope with their anxiety rather than trying to make it poof-disappear?

So if genetic counselors weren’t here, maybe some people would never quite grasp  the subtleties of x-linked inheritance, the mechanics of adjacent 1 segregation, or the bayesian likelihood that they will have a child with spinal muscular atrophy. Who knows if patients even care about these matters? We all know that knowledge has very little to do with decision-making or adaptation and patients will still be just as anxious.  And if prenatal diagnosis ceased to exist, the net result would be an increase in the number of births of children with Down syndrome . One might argue this is not exactly a public health emergency or a critical failure of the healthcare system.

How can I doubt something I have been doing for three decades? Well, the doubt is mostly in my head, not in my heart. So I challenge you all to restore my faith in this relationship. Prove our value to patients and the healthcare system. Go out and do the studies. Measure all kinds of outcomes – psychosocial adaptation, public health measures like reducing the incidence of serious cancers, quality of decision making (how come nobody tries to measure whether patients make good decisions or bad decisions?), empowerment, perceive personal control, whatever. Do them all.  Let’s finally listen seriously to Shoshana Shiloh, Marion McAllister, Barb Biesecker and the other researchers who have been prodding us for years to examine genetic counseling outcomes. But then be prepared to take a long, hard look at ourselves, what we do, if we should even be doing it, question our assumptions and ethos, and think about how we should change the very nature of genetic counseling. Let’s be sure the relationship is as rewarding for our patients as it is for us. Make the fire in my heart spark some passion in my head.

* – My love for my wife is better evoked by this verse from a Tom Waits song:

In this land there’s a town/In that town there’s a house/ In that house there’s a woman/And in that woman there’s a heart that I love.

5 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as , , ,

by | January 11, 2011 · 11:29 PM

Kellogg’s Complaint

Improper kinds of food in the stomach and intestines, will, in this excessively irritable state of the system, cause nocturnal emissions……Farinaecous foods, properly prepared, is incomparably the best aliment for such a sufferer.….

– from A Lecture to Young Men (1838) by Sylvester Graham, Inventor of Graham Crackers

I study the history of genetics because it provides insight into the practice and ethos of genetic counseling. The historical perspective helps me understand why I do what I do. But I also love studying history because of its quirky recesses and unsuspected intersections of historical trajectories. Like  the common thread of eugenics that runs through the histories of masturbation, breakfast cereal, and vasectomy.

Most scholars point to the early 18th century as the beginning of the Western World’s repulsion/fascination with masturbation. In about 1712, an anonymous author published a pamphlet titled Onania; or The Heinous Sin of Self Pollution and all its Frightful Consequences, in both SEXES Considered …. (the title goes on for another 30 words or so) that describes the physical and psychological toll taken on those who engaged in what was politely called “the solitary vice,” as well as advice on how to treat the newly-minted medical condition.  Onania appeared in multiple editions throughout Europe and the United States. Over the next two centuries numerous similar publications followed , all  variations on the same theme, i.e. men and women needed to be saved from the debilitating effects of this evil practice (WARNING: This video link is somewhat risqué).

Some of the great minds of Western history weighed in on self-stimulation, such as Immanuel Kant (he is the father of autonomy, after all), Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and of course Sigmund Freud. Richard Wagner, the great German composer and anti-Semite, foreshadowed future connections between eugenics and masturbation when he blamed the degeneracy of Jews on their supposed frequent practice of “self-pollution.” Some authors recommended extreme physical measures to prevent masturbation (WARNING: this link is not for the weak of heart or those who might be offended by unusual paraphernalia). Christine O’Donnell is just one of the lesser lights in a long and eclectic line of anti-masturbationists.

In America, one of the most committed anti-masturbationists was John Harvey Kellogg, a respected surgeon who believed that a vegetarian diet and vigorous exercise promoted physical and emotional health. Kellogg was particularly concerned that sex, including sexual relations between husband and wife , was detrimental to health and well-being (all of his 42 children were adopted or foster. He and his wife slept in separate bedrooms and proudly spoke of their lack of a sexual relationship). The most debilitating sexual behavior was masturbation, which, according to Kellogg,  could be identified by any of 39 signs such as general debility, early signs of consumption, premature and defective development, failure of mental capacity, love of solitude, unnatural boldness, mock piety, paralysis, and eating clay, slate pencils, plaster, and chalk.

For Kellogg, the solution to the masturbation problem was simple – a healthy diet and active lifestyle.  Kellogg concocted various foods with the aim of promoting health and preventing masturbation. Granola was one of his earlier attempts. Eventually, Kellogg, along with his brother Will, developed what they felt was the perfect health food – flaked dry cereal, what we know today as Kellogg’s Cornflakes. The Kellogg brothers served cornflakes at their exclusive Sanitarium in Battle Creek to well-heeled clients  – along with a daily serving of yogurt administered to both ends of their clients’ digestive tracts. One bowl of cornflakes in the morning and Voila!  not only will you be healthy, you will become master of your own domain.

Concerned as he was with individual purity, it is not surprising that Kellogg was interested in racial purity. In 1906 (the same year his brother Will founded what would eventually become the Kellogg Cereal company), he established the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek. The Foundation, one of the key eugenic centers in the United States, sponsored 3 conferences on race betterment, collected eugenic family histories, and worked with other eugenics organizations around the country.

From here the story heads south to the state reformatory for youthful offenders in Jeffersonville, Indiana where Dr. Harry Sharp presided as the institution’s medical superintendent. The aptly named Dr. Sharp is generally regarded as the father of vasectomy. Sharp honed his surgical skills on the reformatory’s young men among whom masturbation was presumably a common occurrence, a behavior that did not sit well with the medical superintendent. As Sharp tells it “…the story of my first operation in October, 1899. A boy 19 years old came to me and asked he be castrated, as he could not resist the desire to masturbate….I did the operation [vasectomy, not castration]…..In two month’s time he came to me and told me he had ceased to masturbate and that he was all right… Three months after that operation he made satisfactory advances in the school. This was true practically of every man operated on; every man who has ceased to masturbate has assigned the same reason: practically every man sleeps better, feels better and has a better appetite.” Sharp went on to perform another 175 vasectomies between 1899 and 1907 “solely for the purpose of relief from the habit of masturbation.”

Sharp, like many of his contemporaries, became interested in eugenics.  From his viewpoint in a penal institution, he saw a world overcrowded with indiscriminately breeding mental and physical defectives: “The class of individuals is very prolific, from the fact that in the matter of sexuality, as in everything else, they know of no self-restraint. They indulge their selfish lust, ab libitum, with no thought whatsoever  as to what the result may be…..They simply know that they want gratification, and gratification they are going to have.” Sharp wanted to curtail reproduction among those with defective germ plasm.  After dismissing alternative approaches like marriage restriction laws, castration, and segregation, he championed vasectomy  as the cure for eugenic degradation because, in his view, the procedure was quick and easy to perform, had no serious side effects, did not hamper a man’s pursuit of life, liberty or happiness, and “it is endorsed by the persons subjected to it.” Sharp performed 456 eugenic vasectomies between 1899 and 1908. Note that Indiana did not enact a mandatory sterilization law until 1907; in 1909, Indiana governor Thomas Marhsall ordered a moratorium on sterilizations (In an odd historical connection to another well-known consumer products company, the reformatory eventually became a factory for Colgate-Palmolive).

It is easy to dismiss Kellogg as a, well, flake, and Sharp as a narrow-minded crank. Yet in many ways society has benefited from both men (though not in the ways they intended). Neither man fits neatly into labels like eugenicist or eccentric. They were complex men who were  products of their complicated times. Eugenics, anti-masturbation preaching, health foods, and vasectomy were all “in the air” in the late 19th century, and it is not surprising that their paths should criss-cross.

There is an ironic modern twist to the end of this tale. The state of Washington recently enacted legislation granting licensure to genetic counselors. In completing my license application, I was required to affirm that I have never been convicted of “frotteurism.”  I have never been accused or convicted of any crime but I could not honestly answer the question because I didn’t know the meaning of frotteurism, so I looked it up: the practice of touching or rubbing against the clothed body of another person in a crowd as a means of obtaining sexual gratification. All those bowls of cornflakes and graham crackers from my childhood finally paid off.

5 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as , , , ,

by | December 5, 2010 · 6:33 PM

Considering The Future of Genetic Counseling, Act II

When it comes to the future, there are three kinds of people: those who let it happen, those who make it happen, and those who wonder what happened.
John M. Richardson, Jr.

Those who predict the future are doomed to be wrong; just ask anyone at the race track or on Wall Street. But fear of failure should not hold us back; we have much to learn from error. So, to continue with the theme of the future of genetic counseling (see my previous posting), I will venture a few more guesses about the issues we should be considering when planning for tomorrow.

1. ) Safe and Legal Abortion Is Not Guaranteed For The Future : Abortion and abortion providers are under legal, social, and physical attack. It is not out of the question that Roe v. Wade may one day be overturned. Although it makes us uncomfortable to hear it, prenatal diagnosis is largely predicated on the availability of abortion.  It does not make economic sense to offer aneuploidy screening primarily to prepare parents for the birth of a

child with disabilities. If abortion becomes unavailable, insurers may be less likely to cover prenatal diagnosis, which could result in a dramatic drop in prenatal diagnosis job opportunities. And economic issues aside, is it morally justifiable to undertake the small risk of losing the pregnancy from amniocentesis or CVS simply because of parental anxiety or the desire for emotional preparation? You say that prenatal diagnosis can be important to long term developmental/medical outcome and familial adaptation. I say, aside from rare exceptions, the data is just not there to support your contention (and remember that the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”). So go out and do the studies and prove me wrong.

2) We Can’t Afford to Ignore Cost Effectiveness: Genetic counseling will likely come under increasing economic scrutiny. While I want to believe that our value to health care goes beyond dollar-savings, we nonetheless have to fiscally justify our employment and work loads. And, at times, we may be facing contradictory economic pressures. We will want to show that we lower healthcare costs by reducing the number of unnecessary genetic tests, ensuring appropriate medical screening based on genetic assessment, or whatever other means to demonstrate that we help produce a healthier population in a cost-effective manner.

On the other hand, we will be receiving subtle and not so subtle pressures from our employers to increase the number of revenue-raising activities. Back in the early 2000s, many centers, including my own, experienced a sharp drop in the number of patients who underwent amniocentesis, I suspect the result of  a social trend in changes in attitudes toward abortion and disability. At one point, my boss said only half-kiddingly “Bob, you are counseling yourself right out of a job.” Genetic counselors need to take the lead in conducting studies that show our cost-effectiveness while simultaneously demonstrating that we do not hurt our institutions’ bottom lines.

3) The Human Genome Project May Not Deliver On Its Promises: Genomic medicine is the medical technology du jour. All sorts of claims have been made about how genetics will revolutionize health care and cure everything from diabetes to the heartbreak of psoriasis. We have promised the moon. But what if the “genetic revolution” never comes? Or what if genomic medicine simply falls by the wayside as some new medical technology becomes sexier and more promising than genetics? Will funding for genetic research and clinical positions dry up? We need to stay alert to changes in other areas of medical care and adapt genetics to the changing practice of medicine.

4) The United States Will Not Be The Center Of The Genetics Universe: Until relatively recently, genetic counseling and genetic counselors have been concentrated in the US.  Although I haven’t tabulated the numbers, I am pretty sure there are more genetic counselors in the US than in the rest of the world combined. While many valuable contributions have come from Canada, the UK, both sides of the Tasman Sea, the Netherlands and other countries, the US has been the leader in the field (I will accept any criticisms of national chauvinism leveled by my international colleagues). But over the last 10-15 years, genetic counseling has spread to many other countries. New genetic counseling models will emerge as genetic counselors work in different cultural and geographic settings, especially  in non-English speaking countries. More international meetings, communication, and cooperative transnational research will be critical to the future of genetic counseling. The US model is one way of providing genetic counseling; it is not THE way, or necessarily the best way.

5) Office Visits and Flipbooks Are Soooo 20th Century: As Allie Janson Hazell and others keep reminding me, the Internet and e-technologies offer opportunities to reach more patients in a variety of ways. And as Vicki Venne recently pointed out, Millenial Generation students and patients are not going to stand for old fogey communication and teaching techniques. Some of us are just beginning to utilize the telephone to communicate test results.

I mean, come on, Sugar, it’s time to take a walk on the Wild Side.

We must open our minds and embrace, adapt to, and integrate new communication technologies to better serve our patients. Brick-and-mortar counseling has a critical place, but it may not always be the best way to ply our trade. And on-line genetic testing is not necessarily the spawn of Satan. We can’t – and maybe shouldn’t – control access to all genetic testing, but we can work to make sure genetic testing is used effectively and appropriately by patients and health care providers.

I hope I have provoked some of you into disagreement, thought, and action. Where am I off the mark? Which of my predictions are bound to be wrong? What are your predictions? How can we best prepare ourselves for the future?

6 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | November 14, 2010 · 9:47 PM

Demographics and The Future of Genetic Counseling

Those who do not study and prepare for the future are doomed to live it rather than to shape it. Keeping an eye on what might be coming down the road in the next 30 years could help genetic counselors play a key role in 21st century medical care. Let’s look at the some of

the demographic factors that got us here and then try to figure out where things might be headed.

Since about 1980, genetic counselors have been surfing a significant and unrelenting demographic wave – delayed childbearing. The AMA rate (the percentage of pregnancies to women 35 and above) increased virtually every year from 5% in 1980 to  nearly 15% in 2008; this pattern is even more pronounced in many Western European nations. We were in the right place at the right time. With apologies to the Beach Boys, we caught a wave and we were sittin’ on top of the world. Incidentally, I have noticed an ever so slight flattening of the AMA rate in the US over the last few years; I am not saying that it’s a close out yet or that we should grab the next ankle buster that rolls in, but we should be keeping our eyes open for a different demographic heavy.

The growing AMA rate profoundly influenced the genetic counseling job market and the very practice of genetic counseling. For example, the number of genetic counseling jobs increased with:

  • The number of women seeking prenatal diagnosis due primarily to their age.
  • The false positive rate of serum and ultrasound screening for fetal aneuploidy, with much higher false positive rates for women over 35, resulting in more referrals for genetic counseling.
  • The number of referrals for infertility, which increases with the age of the parents.
  • More referrals for genetic counseling for breast cancer. Although delayed child-bearing itself is not a hallmark of hereditary breast cancer, it can result in younger age at diagnosis and hence more likely to lead to genetic counseling.

The AMA rate also helped to shape the ethos and face of genetic counseling. The Holy Ethical Trinity of genetic counseling – autonomy, informed consent, and reproductive freedom – is worshiped by the largely liberal and progressive AMA population. Not surprisingly, the demographic profile of genetic counselors broadly reflects the patient population they serve, i.e., middle to upper middle class well-educated white women. We have more or less been the socioeconomic, physical, and ethical mirror images of our patients.

Trends, of course, have a habit of being temporary. The AMA rate will likely eventually decline as socio-economic factors change, reproductive preferences fluctuate , and political  moods swing. So what other demographic trends might influence the future of genetic counseling? Here are some population projections for the year 2050, based on a report from the Pew Research Center:

  • About 20% of Americans will be foreign-born, which will be greater than the percentage of foreign-born Americans during the great migrations from Europe a century ago. Currently, about 12% of the US population is foreign-born.
  • Non-Hispanic whites will make up less than 50% of the US population
  • The  percentage of the US population who are Latino or Asian will  increase to 29% and 13%, up from 14% and 5%, respectively (to say nothing of the increase in people of mixed ethnicity).
  • The percentage of the US population 65 and older will increase from 12% to 19%

What might this mean for the practice and profession of genetic counseling profession? For simplicity’s sake, I am ignoring other factors that can influence the future of the profession, such as advances in medical technology, new health care delivery models, and changes in the economics of medical services.

First off, we must increase the ethnic diversity of the genetic counseling profession so that we – and our support staff – reflect the demographic make-up of our patients. This can  help overcome significant social and psychological barriers to medical services and improve the cultural awareness and sensitivity of the profession. Perhaps we can take a lesson from Canada, where immigrants already comprise 20% of the population. Secondly, the guiding ethical and counseling principles of the profession must evolve to be in tune with the many and varied beliefs of an ethically and ethnically diverse population.  Not every culture buys into the supremacy of individual autonomy, nondirectiveness, or other lofty ethical principles of Western medicine.

An aging population means that we will be seeing more patients who are physically and cognitively impaired. The traditional educational and counseling models utilized by genetic counselors may not be particularly effective for this segment of the population. Because it may not be so easy for older individuals to navigate to and around large urban medical centers we may need to increase our presence in alternative medical care settings. From a clinical standpoint, we will also need to be sensitive to new or unanticipated manifestations of genetic diseases.

Where do you see the genetic counseling profession in the next 10, 20, or 30 years? What demographic trends do you think are important? How can we best prepare ourselves? What did I miss? Where do you disagree with me?

3 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | October 10, 2010 · 10:10 PM

A Question of Race

Biological ancestry is an important part of genetic counseling. Sometimes we call it race or ethnicity, or ask “What countries are your ancestors from?” I am not quite sure what the difference is between race and ethnicity, though in the workaday world of genetic counseling, I over-simplify it for myself by thinking of  race, or more precisely, biological ancestry as relevant to genetic disease issues whereas ethnicity reflects sociocultural issues that are relevant to the counseling end of things.

There is much debate about the ethics, meaning, and utility of the terms “race” and “ethnicity.” The arguments for and against these concepts are intricate and complicated; just thinking about them gives me a headache. While the debate is important to genetic counseling, I want to put those arguments aside for a moment. Instead I want to look at the ways that patients respond to the question about their ancestry, and what those responses tell us about social issues, family relationships, stereotyping, and prejudice.

We have all heard many responses when we pose the question of biological ancestry to patients. The puzzled look, followed by “White.”  The consumer-society influenced “Heinz 57.” The patriotic “American.” The historical “My family has been here since the Mayflower” (given the number of times I’ve heard that one, the Mayflower must have held more passengers than Royal Caribbean’s Oasis of the Seas). Of course, many patients are proud of their ancestry.

Responses sometimes reflect social issues. In 1983 when I first started as a genetic counselor, my patients rarely answered that they were Native American. Over time, a certain amount of cachet has become attached to being at least partially Native American, that it somehow makes you exotic or cool if you have some “Indian blood.”  Now a surprising number of my patients  claim to have Native American ancestry. Yet when carefully questioned as to who in their lineage was Native American, the answer is often along the lines of “Well, my great-great-grandfather lived next door to someone who knew a Cherokee.” In many cases, if they had a nosebleed, they would lose their “Indian blood.” It is an interesting example of how, over time, intense hatred  can evolve into a distorted sense of pride toward a population group, an attitude shift which no doubt many Native Americans find questionable.

A patient’s answer may provide some insight into family dynamics. For example, the patient may say they are Swedish. When asked if they are full Swedish, the response can be “Well, we’re also German and Polish on my mother’s side, but my father was full Swedish and we were closer to his family, so we always say we are Swedish.”

Sometimes, prejudice and stereotype rear their ugly heads. I have particularly noticed this when I ask if the patient is Ashkenazi Jewish. More than once, I have gotten a harsh response along the lines of “I ain’t no Jew” accompanied by a derisive facial expression. More subtle stereotyping is evident when patients remark “Well I don’t think I am Jewish but I have a big nose” or “Maybe. I am very good with money.” Then they look nervously at me. Many patients think that I am Jewish, as do many of my colleagues. As much as we don’t like to admit it, we all engage in some level of stereotyping and apparently I fit a common Jewish stereotype – educated, from the East Coast,  healthcare professional, a physical appearance that roughly conforms to an idea of “Jewish.” In fact, I am a (ex)Catholic whose grandparents were born in Italy and Poland. Either verbally or with expressions, patients indicate that they are unsure if I am Jewish and worry that their remark offended me. In some weird way I feel like a “victim” of prejudice toward a group that I am not even a member of.  The remarks are slightly offensive, but not in the same way they would be to a counselor who is Jewish. Rarely do I hear a patient claim to be Jewish when they are not. Apparently, Native American is much higher on the Racial Coolness Hierarchy Scale than Jewish.

These peculiarities about biological ancestry also play out in the world of genetic ancestry testing. Just what value is that information for one’s sense of self? Is it merely an innocent curiosity, or is there a darker underlying truth about how people conceptualize race or ethnicity? Do people think DNA variants and country of origin are somehow biologically tied to behavior and temperament?  If you discover that one of your haplogroups is common in Ireland, will you start drinking excessive amounts of alcohol, have large dysfunctional families, develop a new interest in Lords of the Dance, and write great literature (or whatever your stereotype of how an Irishman behaves) simply because of some DNA polymorphisms?  Remember, too, that ultimately we are all out of Africa, wherever our ancestors paused or whoever they bred with along the way.

I would like to hear your experiences and thoughts about asking patients about their ancestry. Please leave comments; they are what make blogs interesting.

17 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as

by | September 19, 2010 · 4:07 PM

Let Me Into Your Grief

“In three words I can sum up everything I’ve learned about life: it goes on.”
– Robert Frost

Grief, a constant in genetic counseling, is a normal reaction to death, the loss of hopes and dreams, suffering, shattered self-images, disrupted relationships, and the other emotional fallout of genetic disease. As part of our counseling work, we try to help patients express and explore their grief so that they can heal as much as possible and move on with their lives.

 

In his 1914 poem Home Burial, Robert Frost poignantly observes – as many genetic counselors have – how grief can follow different emotional arcs in men and women. The poem is set in the indoor staircase and entry of a house, and is essentially  a dialogue between a married couple who have recently lost their firstborn child.  The loss of her son is so overwhelming to the wife, Amy, that it is beyond verbalization; life is not going on for her. Her (unnamed) husband, in her eyes, does not have the same profound sense of loss. Both are profoundly sad but their different grieving styles have created a palpable tension in their relationship. The title of the poem refers as much to the child’s grave as to the emotions that are buried in the home.

The text  is taken from Collected Poems of Robert Frost, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1930. I have added (H) and (W) to  indicate when the husband and wife are speaking, respectively. To appreciate its full depth, power, and beauty, shut your door, take a quiet break, and read it in its entirety. A few times. A well-done video about Frost’s life includes an excellent dramatization of Home Burial that would integrate nicely into a class discussion about grief. Incidentally, Robert Lee Frost, the quintessential Yankee poet, was born in San Francisco and was supposedly named after the great Southern general Robert E. Lee.

As the poem opens, the husband spots his wife at the top of the stairs where she is once again gazing out of a window. The husband climbs the stairs and demands:

(H) ‘What is it you see from up there always?—For I want to know….’

She, in her place, refused him any help….

She let him look, sure that he wouldn’t see,

Blind creature; and a while he didn’t see.

 

Eventually though he realizes that she has been staring at the grave of their child:

But at last he murmured ‘Oh’ and again, ‘Oh.’

(W)‘What is it – what?’

(H) ‘Just that I see.’

 

(W)’You don’t,’ she challenged. ‘Tell me what it is.’

(H)’But I understand; it is … the child’s mound –‘

 

The mention of their child’s grave triggers a flood of emotions for Amy:

(W)‘Don’t, don’t, don’t, don’t,’ she cried.

She withdrew,……

And turned on him with such a daunting look,

He said twice over before he knew himself:

(H)‘Can’t a man speak of his own child he’s lost?’

(W) ‘I don’t know rightly that any man can.’

As she stands ready to escape out of the house, he pleads for her help so that he can understand her better, but is rebuffed:

(H) ‘There’s something I should like to ask you dear.’

(W) ‘You don’t know how to ask it.’

(H) ‘Help me, then.’

Her fingers moved the latch for reply.

(H) ‘My words are nearly always an offence.

I don’t know how to speak of anything

So as to please you…. A man must partly give up being a man

With women-folk.’

 

Amy once again tries to leave the house:

She moved the latch a little.

(H)‘Don’t – don’t go.

Don’t carry it to someone else this time.’

 

Desperate to get through to her, he pleads:

(H) ‘Tell me about it….Let me into your grief.’

And again he cries out

(H) ‘A man can’t speak of his own child that’s dead.’

She can’t understand his ability to bury their child and get on with life, and anger and disbelief pour out:

(W) ‘You can’t because you don’t know how to speak.

If you had any feelings, you that dug

With your own hand – how could you?- his little grave;

Making the gravel leap and leap in the air,

Leap up, like that, like that, and land so lightly

And roll back down the mound beside the hole.

I thought, Who is that man? I don’t know you…..

You could sit there with the stains on your shoes

Of the fresh earth from your own baby’s grave

 

And talk about everyday concerns.

You had stood the spade up against the wall

Outside there in the entry….’

 

At this point, the husband thinks that Amy has finally aired her emotions and is ready to reconcile herself with the death of her child:

(H)‘There, you have said it all and you feel better.

Close the door.

The heart’s gone out of it: why keep it up.’…

(W) ‘You – oh, you think the talk is all. ‘

But Frost is not about to make it easy for the couple or the reader. This grief is too profound to be resolved with the bursting of Amy’s emotional dam. As the poem ends, Amy walks out the door:

(W) ‘I must go —…’

(H) ‘I’ll follow and bring you back by force. I will! —‘

 

The poem, the story, the couple’s relationship, and the reader’s desire for a happy ending are left hanging, exhausted and unresolved, on that simple dash.

2 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as , , ,

by | August 15, 2010 · 8:44 PM

A DNA Day Surprise

There has been much sturm und drang lately about the ramifications of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. Depending upon your point of view, either it’s the end of the world as we know it, or it’s a door opening into the future. These opinions seem to be based on, well, opinion, rather than a careful weighing of evidence – perhaps because there is no evidence.

A recent encounter with a patient who utilized DTC testing has forced me to confront my thoughts on this issue. I am purposely avoiding mentioning the name of the company – the company does not need free advertising, and the specific company does not matter to the issues at hand. I have modified the patient’s name and some personal details to be absolutely sure that anonymity is maintained.

 

Zoe, a bright and articulate 30-something Ashkenazi Jewish woman, called me on the advice of her primary care physician. She had no specific health problems or family history concerns, but likes to keep herself educated about health matters. She maintains a healthy life style and has long been interested in learning as much as possible about her disease risks. She does not have children, but would like to start a family in the near future. She came across the website of a DTC company that happened to be offering a special deal on their genetic screen to celebrate DNA Day. So, she and her sputum took the plunge.

The results were a mish-mash of not-particularly-helpful information such as a slightly higher risk for diabetes, slightly lower risk for cardiovascular disease, wet ear wax, and curly hair (which hung plumb-straight to her shoulders). But she didn’t call me to discuss her ability to smell asparagus metabolite in urine. Instead, right there,  nestled among the results of her Measure of Intelligence and her Longevity, was a deleterious BRCA mutation.

What does this mean, she asked me over the phone? I suggested she make an appointment with me or, if she preferred, she could ask the DNA testing company if they had certified genetic counselors on staff who could work with her. The company offered her a list of genetic counselors in her area, but did not themselves employ genetic counselors.  A few days later, she was in my office.

Creature of habit that I am, I began with a pedigree, but no matter how hard I shook the family tree, the only cancer that fell out was a late onset prostate cancer in a distant relative. Not surprisingly, one side of the family contained very few females. She peppered me with questions about cancer risks, screening, and prevention. She took it all in, duly taking notes and asking appropriate questions. Although the cancer risks were concerning to her, she was reassured by the availability of options to reduce her cancer risks or to improve the chances of detecting breast cancer at an early stage. She was not ready at this stage of her life to make surgical decisions. She had alerted her family to her results, and they planned to have a family meeting after she had met with me to discuss what they would do next. In short, it went pretty much like your average BRCA Positive Informing Session. She was quite satisfied with her dealings with the DTC company, and was planning on encouraging others in her social circle to consider testing as well. I sensed no significant emotional distress beyond what you would ordinarily expect.

The lab is CLIA-approved, and out-source the BRCA Ashkenazi Panel to a well-known lab. Although the patient was concerned that sputum was not as accurate as blood, I assured her that I saw no need to repeat her testing unless she wanted independent confirmation for her own peace of mind. But this would cost her about $600, and since there was no family history of cancer, it would not be covered by her insurance. The DTC lab charged her far less than that, and in her view, she received more information for less money.

For Zoe, DTC testing was a very positive experience. She received valuable information that could very well wind up saving her life. With no family history of cancer, she would not have started breast cancer screening for nearly another decade, and would likely otherwise never have pictured a risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in her future. As an aside, I think it is a forceful example of the potential advantages to offering BRCA screening to all Ashkenazi women (yes, I recognize the possible downsides and intricacies too). It also partially counters the argument that we can tell patients more from pedigrees than we can from DNA tests.

Zoe was the ideal person to utilize DTC testing. She is bright, educated, and eager to improve her health and avoid disease. She had the financial means to pay for testing and counseling (neither of which were covered by her insurer). She is emotionally stable, and the information, while surprising to her, was not particularly upsetting to Zoe or (by her report) her family. While there could certainly be long-term psychosocial issues, my gut sense was that she was not at high risk for serious problems. Of course, one could easily imagine patients who might react very differently in this situation.

My criticisms of the experience are mostly minor. The written information provided by the lab about the implications of BRCA results was fairly minimal. I tried to contact the lab to ask technical questions, but the lab’s website does not offer a readily apparent Contact Us section. It took some digging around to find a general email address, and then it took the lab 2 days to reply to me. If labs and genetic counselors are going to work together, labs need to improve their communication with health professionals. The lab rep insisted that the results were not intended for medical purposes. But, come on, BRCA results can be a matter of life and death. DTC labs need to step up to the plate and clearly acknowledge that at least some of their results have very important implications for medical care beyond telling someone to exercise more, eat less, and hold your nose when you urinate after eating asparagus.

Zoe also learned that she is a carrier for a few potentially serious genetic diseases that could affect her reproductive decisions (which she found helpful). There was also the usual collection of “Self Evident Why Did They Bother Testing For This Stuff” traits like photic sneeze response, odor detection, pain sensitivity, etc. While it is easy to make fun of these, in spirit, the information is not very different than the type of information that couples seek from sperm and egg donors when going through assisted reproduction.

We need to report our experiences with patients like Zoe as case reports and with larger qualitative and quantitative studies. We have much to learn, and it can help inform policy decisions, patient experiences, and professional debates. We should not reject DTC testing outright; there are situations where it in fact it may be quite appropriate. Until we study the phenomenon, we have no right to form extreme opinions about it. Without information, it’s a an argument, not a debate.

Genetic counselors are sensitive to the psychosocial ramifications of genetic disease. But if we insist that everyone who has a genetic test first see a genetic counselor, are  we creating an aura of specialness and mystery about genetics that can be a factor in the development of psychosocial sequelae? Should we be setting aside genetic testing from other medical tests and treating it as SOMETHING VERY SPECIAL? Perhaps for some patients, genetic testing is not such a big deal, but if we insist that it is a big deal, we might be contributing to some of the very psychosocial problems we are looking to minimize.

I would like to hear from other genetic counselors who have worked with patients who have gone through DTC testing – the good, the bad, and the ugly.

9 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as , , ,

by | July 28, 2010 · 11:52 PM

Facts, Figures and Fictions in Genetic Counseling

Genetic counselors have a love/hate relationship with numbers. We sometimes sniff with contempt at numbers , and nobly proclaim that psychosocial issues are the real business of genetic counseling. On the other hand, patients and referring physicians demand concrete answers, so we spend an inordinate amount of time  discussing statistics and risk figures. And, truth be told, hard data is less complicated to address than complex psychological issues. With numbers, as Casey Stengel used to say, “You can look it up” – but counseling requires us to use our skills to fly by the seat of our pants.

This focus on numbers has led to the particularly absurd practice of evaluating the effectiveness of genetic counseling  by measuring accuracy of patient recall.  Not surprisingly, patients often demonstrate poor recall of any but the simplest facts. Surely by now we have learned that patients are not calculating machines! Whatever information we provide passes through patients’ complicated emotional, neurobiological, and cultural filters and out the other end comes a jumbled understanding of technical information that plays out in a complex psychosocial milieu.  Yet despite their fairly consistent inability to remember much of what we tell them, patients usually make good decisions. Many researchers are at last questioning the validity of  using recall to measure effectiveness – it’s a counseling session, not a final exam, for chrissakes’ almighty.

I am relieved that researchers are developing alternative ways of evaluating genetic counseling. What intrigues me  about numbers, though, is a question that almost no researcher has asked – “Why do genetic counselors (or any health professional) choose to use a certain set of numbers when counseling patients?” It’s a given that all research studies are flawed, and therefore the numbers generated by studies are flawed, some tragically so. I would like to believe that we carefully evaluate and compare studies, and choose those with the soundest methodologies and largest sample sizes to generate risk figures for use in genetic counseling. But I am not convinced this is always the case. Let me illustrate with 3 common examples from genetic counseling practice.

1) The single most widely cited genetic counseling statistic – for at least  30 years – is the mythical 0.5% miscarriage rate of amniocentesis. This number is well enshrined in text books, journal articles, and our collective memory. It’s usually presented to patients, with some variation, as “Amnocentesis has a half-percent miscarriage rate.” This may then be followed by a statement like  “But at our center, the miscarriage rate is X” (inevitably some number lower than 0.5%), or  perhaps “More recent studies have shown a lower rate.” These “statements of fact”  are so incorrect that they border on falsehoods. First off, as I have pointed out (ad nauseum, to some) no study has ever shown a 0.5% miscarriage, period, end of story. Second, no individual center or physician knows their own miscarriage rate. The only way to determine a center’s or individual physician’s pregnancy loss rate is through a randomized controlled study within a center. This requires sample sizes – and raises ethical issues – well beyond the means of even the largest and best financed clinics. In the absence of such a study, providing a center- or physician-specific risk is biased guesswork at best, and fraudulent deception at worst. Third, while some recent studies have shown low rates of fetal loss, the very first multi-institutional US study of amniocentesis published in 1976 found no statistically significant difference in the loss rate between the amnio/no amnio groups.  The most honest and accurate thing you could say to patients is”Studies have shown that amniocentesis has a loss rate anywhere from no increased risk on up to about 1%. There is no reason to believe that this center’s loss rate is different than published data, although we lack the statistical evidence from our own center to prove that assertion”. How can you justify saying anything other than that?

2) Maternal serum screening for aneuploidy is a mainstay of patient referrals to genetic counselors. Parents are put through the emotional ringer, and make life-changing decisions based on the results of these tests. The aneuploidy risk is usually stated as a precise-sounding fraction, e.g. 1/127.  To soften the blow, we may re-state it as a “barely 1%”, or re-frame it as more than a 99% chance that the fetus does not have an aneuploidy. But no matter how you say it, the statistic itself still carries an air of truth and authority, etched in stone and handed down to us  from the Lab Gods. Yet  a single blood sample from one patient analyzed in different labs can result in very, very different aneuploidy risks from each lab. So which number is right? Which lab do we swear by and why?

3) In cancer counseling, it is common practice to assess the likelihood of carrying a BRCA or other gene mutation by using one of the many risk assessment models – BRCAPro, FHAT, PAT, BOADICEA, etc. While each model has its strengths and weaknesses, it is pretty clear that the same family, when assessed by multiple models, can wind up with very different BRCA carrier probabilities. And although the adherents, er, uh, I mean, supporters of a particular model will tout its strengths, when it comes down to it, all models perform about the same, and the models usually perform extra poorly at the upper and lower risk thresholds. Why use one number over the other? In fact, why use any number at all (other than for research purposes)?

I suspect that which numbers we use tells us more about ourselves than about any absolute or approximate reality. I think it also makes us  very uncomfortable when the pillars of truth are found to be structurally unsound; we are not comfortable “going there.” Do we use a particular set of numbers because that’s what our bosses told us to do? Because that’s what we learned in school? Because we just read an article by some respected and clever researcher, so we assume the numbers he or she uses must be pretty good? Are there deeper and subtler reasons? For example, I have argued that 0ur imperfect collective memory of the risks of amniocentesis has allowed us to construct a more palatable reason for offering amniocentesis at age 35,  a justification based on a semi-fictional medical risk/benefit assessment rather than based on the more realistic reason of economic gains of preventing births of babies with Down syndrome.

Why do you think you use the numbers you do? Share your thoughts on this, and let’s get a lively debate going.

10 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as , , ,

by | June 14, 2010 · 10:52 PM

GeeKnowType – The Unique Gene Boutique

“Know thyself,” said Socrates. We at GeeKnowType agree – everyone should have access to the personal knowledge hidden deep inside their DNA. But not everyone needs one of those pesky certified genetic “specialists” to guide them through the maze of genetic testing. Even if you don’t fully grasp the subtleties of germline mosaicism or imprinting, you have a fundamental right to learn self-evident truths about yourself.

GeeKnowType, the leading on-line gene boutique, will unlock the treasure chest of your DNA. Discover your innermost desires, dreams, and destinies – so secret that, until now, even you were unaware of them.

With its focus on nonsense mutations, our patented SybilChip® technology will help you realize your full genetic potential. Simply send us a small sample of your brain tissue*, which you can obtain on your own with our free easy to use home neurobiopsy kit. Your confidential genetic profile can be posted on your Facebook wall, im’d to your favorite chatroom, or downloaded to your smartphone.

Join the millions of others who have taken advantage of the latest discoveries in the science of human genetics to  improve their personal, social, and sexual lives with GeeKnowType – the DNA test for people who want to be in the know.

Here is a sample of some of our most popular personalized genomic products:

M-eye Color©: Everyone thinks your eyes are brown, but you swear they are hazel. Who’s right? Only your eye color genes know for sure.

SwitchHitter©: Am I right-handed or left-handed? Do I have situs inversus or just a poor sense of direction? With the powerful awareness of your genetic handedness, your cilia will always beat in the right direction.

MyGeneColor©: What is your favorite color? Cerulean? Or is it really a cool shade of pinky-purple? Busy people don’t have time to recall these details. No worry – MyGeneColor will find out for you. You will never again be at a loss, whether you are painting your walls or painting your nails.

RightWeigh©: Your scale says you are overweight, but you know you cannot weigh that much. In fact, research has shown that scales tell us more about our parentage than our eating habits. With your true genetic weight, you will no longer be a slave to unreliable scales that invariably add pounds to your real weight. Say good riddance to diet and exercise!

WhichWay©: Not sure if your sexual preference runs to men, women, or both? Ask your genes and they will tell. WARNING: Not recommended for members of the US Armed Forces.

GeneSequins©: How chic is your fashion sense? The Human Genome Project has proven that your Hip Quotient is genetically determined. Don’t fret about a thoroughly embarrassing surprise visit from Stacy and Clinton! We recommend that GeneSequins be run along with our RightWeigh and MyGeneColor products to give you a complete picture of your personal style.

WellRead©: How do you know which authors you like? More importantly, which ones do you actually understand? Should you be reading The New Yorker or People, James Bond or James Joyce?  Let us read your genes so you can read genetically appropriate literature – and save money on unnecessary magazine subscriptions.

MyType or WildType©: Fed up with online dating services that set you up with a string of losers? Our DNA matching service will help you find your genetic soulmate….Oh, wait, never mind. We will have to cancel this test. Some other company beat us to the punch on this one.

Don’t see a genetic test that meets your needs? Our specially trained staff will help you design a personalized genetic profile that will tell you anything that you want to hear.

* – Minors under the age of 18 – please check with your parents before sending in your brain sample.

12 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as , ,