Search

In celebration of the 100th birthday of Dr. Victor A. McKusick, we look back at the history of genetic counseling at Johns Hopkins Hospital and at some milestones for the profession. With the first students graduating from the Human Genetics program at Sarah Lawrence College in 1971, the genetic counseling profession is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. The profession has seen growth in numbers and scope of practice, the evolution of a national society, the advent of certification and accreditation, the proliferation of graduate programs, the pursuit of state licensure, and collaboration with fellow genetics professionals. Many of the early jobs were at academic centers, such as Johns Hopkins Hospital, while today counselors are employed in a multitude of settings and engaged in a variety of roles., (© 2021 The Authors. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Genetic counseling as a formal clinical service was defined in 1947, though the first study of its effectiveness was not published until 1966. This history can be broadly divided in to 3 periods: 1) 1947-1980, when the focus was primarily on prevention of disability, 2) 1981-1995, when the rationales for counseling began to shift and the first studies on the psychosocial effects of genetic counseling started to appear, albeit still largely focused on reproduction, and 3) 1996 - Present, when genetic counselors increased their presence in oncology, cardiology, and other non-reproductive areas of genetic counseling. Changes in outcome measures of genetic counseling have been intertwined with technological advances in genetic testing, better and more sophisticated outcome measures, the growing professional independence and clinical positions of genetic counselors, and the influence of social scientists particularly from behavioral psychology. Despite advances, assessment of the effectiveness of genetic counseling continues is complicated by a lack of widespread agreement about the most appropriate outcome measures as well as research design problems. Broadly speaking though, genetic counseling tends to improve information recall, improve psychological well-being, and is generally well-regarded by patients., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Genomic technologies are now being applied to reproductive genetic screening. Circulating cell-free DNA testing in pregnancy for fetal chromosomal abnormalities is becoming more widely used as a screening test, and expanded carrier screening for autosomal and X-linked recessive conditions for more than a hundred conditions is available to couples for testing before and during pregnancy. These are most typically available as a commercial test. The purpose of reproductive genetic screening is to facilitate autonomous reproductive choices. Previous studies would suggest that many women do not make informed decisions about prenatal genetic screening, and the introduction of genomic technologies has generally added to the ethical debate. Appropriate pre-test genetic counselling is recommended, and healthcare providers should include information that is balanced, accurate and up-to-date, comprising written and/or e-learning tools, as well as providing psychosocial support so that couples consider the pros and cons of being tested and can make informed decisions., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Screening for fetal chromosomal disorders has evolved greatly over the last four decades. Initially, only maternal age-related risks of aneuploidy were provided to patients. This was followed by screening with maternal serum analytes and ultrasound markers, followed by the introduction and rapid uptake of maternal plasma cell-free DNA-based screening. Studies continue to demonstrate that cfDNA screening for common aneuploidies has impressive detection rates with low false-positive rates. The technology continues to push the boundaries of prenatal screening as it is now possible to screen for less common aneuploidies and subchromosomal disorders. The optimal method for incorporating cfDNA screening into existing programs continues to be debated. It is important that obstetricians understand the biological foundations and limitations of this technology and provide patients with up-to-date information regarding cfDNA screening., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Screening for genetic disorders began in 1963 with the initiation of newborn screening for phenylketonuria. Advances in molecular technology have made both newborn screening for newborns affected with serious disorders, and carrier screening of individuals at risk for offspring with genetic disorders, more complex and more widely available. Carrier screening today can be performed secondary to family history-based screening, ethnic-based screening, and expanded carrier screening (ECS). ECS is panel-based screening, which analyzes carrier status for hundreds of genetic disorders irrespective of patient race or ethnicity. In this article, we review the historical and current aspects of carrier screening for single gene disorders, including future research directions., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Precision medicine aims to approach disease treatment and prevention with consideration of the variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle for each person. This focus on the individual is also key to the practice of genetic counseling, whereby foundational professional values prioritize informed and autonomous patient decisions regarding their genetic health. Genetic counselors are ideally suited to help realize the goals of the precision medicine. However, a limited genetic counseling workforce at a time in which there is a rapidly growing need for services is challenging the balance of supply and demand. This article provides historical context to better understand what has informed traditional models of genetic counseling and considers some of the current forces that require genetic counselors to adapt their practice. New service delivery models can improve access to genetic healthcare by overcoming geographical barriers, allowing genetic counselors to see a higher volume of patients and supporting other healthcare providers to better provide genetic services to meet the needs of their patients. Approaches to genetic counseling service delivery are considered with a forward focus to the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead for genetic counselors in this age of precision health., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

This paper examines the intertwined relations between eugenics and medical genetics from a Swedish perspective in the 1940s and 1950s. The Swedish case shows that a rudimentary form of genetic counseling emerged within eugenic practices in the applications of the Swedish Sterilization Act of 1941, here analyzed from the phenomenon of "heredophobia" (ärftlighetsskräck). At the same time genetic counseling also existed outside eugenic practices, within the discipline of medical genetics. The paper argues that a demand for genetic counseling increased in the 1940s and 1950s in response to a sense of reproductive responsibility engendered by earlier eugenic discourse. The paper also questions the claim made by theoreticians of biopolitics that biological citizens have emerged only during the last decades, especially in neoliberal societies. From the Swedish case it is possible to argue that this had already happened earlier in relation to the proliferation of various aspects of eugenics to the public.

Despite a consistent increase in genetic counselors who report working in laboratory positions, there is a relative dearth of literature on laboratory genetic counseling. Semi-structured interviews were completed with nine laboratory genetic counselors to document how positions were created and have changed with time. Interview transcriptions were analyzed for emerging themes. Several common themes were identified, including that early positions were often part-time, laboratory-initiated and had a lack of job definition. Laboratory genetic counselors commented on their evolving roles and responsibilities, with their positions becoming more technical and specialized over time and many taking on managerial and supervisory roles. All genetic counselors surveyed reported using core genetic counseling skills in their positions. The expansion of diagnostic testing and quickly evolving technology were common themes in regards to the future of laboratory genetic counselors, and participants commented on laboratory genetic counselors having expanding roles with data management, result interpretation and reporting, and guidance of other healthcare providers. Other comments included the impact of competition among laboratories and how training programs can better prepare genetic counseling students for a career in the laboratory setting. This study describes the emergence, and subsequent evolution, of laboratory genetic counseling positions as a significant subspecialty of genetic counseling.

In 1969 Melissa Richter founded the first master's degree genetic counseling program in the country at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, New York. This article examines the myriad factors that contributed to the birth of the genetic counselor and situates this historical watershed in its social, cultural, academic, and medical context. This article highlights Richter's prescience and path-breaking vision, evaluates the Sarah Lawrence program during the years of her directorship (1969-1972), and explores how this early foundation subsequently shaped the field of genetic counseling. Close attention is paid to the ethical issues that concerned Richter and their ongoing relevance to genetic health professionals today. This article is based on historical research in archives, consultation of primary sources, and oral history interviews with genetic counselors, geneticists, and allied professionals.

By examining the professional lives of two popularizers of eugenic thought from the 1910s to the 1940s, this study illustrates the broader change from "mainline" to "reform" eugenics in the United States. Roswell Hill Johnson's university teaching, laboratory research, and later marriage counseling work contrasted greatly with George Seibel's forays into eugenic theater moral reform, and mass physical fitness movements. Yet both men shifted from a strict position of mandating other people's behavior in the name of national health and racial integrity to a more therapeutic stance that cast individual decisions in the context of managed family life. This study shows that for some, the transformation of eugenics in the 1930s meant adapting the traditional focus on superiority, inferiority, and reproduction by design to the language of a commercial marketplace.

This paper reports the development of specialist genetic nursing in the UK and Japan. Between 1970 and 1990, significant technical advances in genetic testing occurred. These advances offered many families affected by genetic conditions more choices in diagnostic, predictive, and prenatal testing. It was recognized that genetic testing could significantly alter the life of the family and that supportive health services were required to accompany such testing. Nurses began to offer specialist services in this setting, but considerable professional development was required to ensure practitioners were competent. In the UK, the profession grew slowly over several decades. Concern to establish minimum standards of practice in this new professional setting culminated in the establishment of a set of competencies and a formal registration process. By comparison, in Japan, developments in genetic nursing have occurred over a shorter period of time, but minimum standards of competence already have been agreed upon.

Since the late 1980s, in France and in a number of other countries, cancer genetics testing has become a clinical reality, particularly for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. BRCA tests allowing for the assessment of an increased cancer risk among patients and their healthy relatives are now being routinely performed as part of clinical practice. Based on fieldwork on French clinical cancer genetics and on the French Cancer Genetics Collaborative Network, this paper examines the configuration of entities, actors and activities mobilized by the performance of BRAC testing, and argues that the development of clinical molecular genetic practices is predicated upon the development of new forms of collaborative work that lead to a transformation of the content and organization of medical activities and judgements. The paper analyses three major collective configurations - local multidisciplinary collectives, data collectives and new clinical collectives - and argues that they not only provide the material conditions needed to carry out the relevant activities, but also articulate a series of distinctive bio-clinical interventions. These interventions provide an interface with research activities, produce the epidemiological measurements and tools that are a sine qua non for clinical work in this field, and, most importantly, establish the conventions that underlie practices, which define the criteria that turn tools and novel entities into operational components of clinical settings. It thus appears that in the field of clinical cancer genetics, bioclinical collectives, as a locus of expertise, have replaced the individual judgement of the practicing clinician.

This paper compares the development of genetic testing for breast cancer (BRCA testing) in the USA and the UK. It argues that national political cultures played an important role in how these genetic testing technologies were shaped, and that the shapes of these technologies had important implications for the users of these systems. In order to demonstrate the roles of national social and political elements in the development of new genetic testing technologies, I introduce the concept of a technology's architecture, which is made up of components and the specific ways in which these components are assembled to fulfill particular functions. In the USA, four very different BRCA testing systems initially emerged. However, one biotechnology company, Myriad Genetics, eventually used its legal and economic position to become the sole provider of testing. It offered BRCA testing the way many other laboratory tests were provided in the USA, available to anyone through any physician. The shape of this testing service had important implications for its participants, defining the client as a consumer who could demand access to any of Myriad's laboratory services, but could not choose among testing systems. In the UK, the government-run National Health Service provided testing through regional genetics clinics, using family history information to assess risk and triage care. Clients in the UK were defined as citizens and patients, who had the right to equal access to the testing system but could not demand any specific services.

The justification for offering amniocentesis to women age 35 or older is that by age 35 the risk of having a child with chromosome problem is greater than the risk of amniocentesis. In fact, this seemingly objective statement is not supported by historical analysis. Maternal age 35 was chosen for the cutoff based mostly on economic cost-benefit analysis rather than objective medical assessment. The story of why 35 was chosen illustrates how collective memory can affect, and be influenced by, the guiding ethical principles of a medical profession.

The article examines conceptual topics underlying construction of the "new public health" and epidemiology, particularly its molecular branch and the idea of genetic risk, in the face of issues raised by new technologies, globalization, today's vast increase in communication strategies, and the weakening of identity links. Problems related to the creation of new interdisciplinary fields are also considered, such as epidemiology and molecular genetics. The repercussions of the social communication of genetic contents (especially predictive genetic testing and the cloning of mammals) are also analyzed.

The authors analyse the experiences of their Genetic Counseling Clinic between 1979-1992. They show the formation of the motives of presenting and consulting. They range the consultants in three etiological categories (genetical, teratological and clinical entities). The proportion of new consultants increased fourfold and this tendency documents unambiguously the claim of family planners for this very important medical service. The proportion of Mendelian disorders, mutagen risk and consanguinity are relatively continuous. Because of teratogen risk the rate of presenting decreased moderately. The proportion of consultants shows a definite increase of multifactorial frequent disorders, which they value as a favorable tendency. For decreasing of unjustified cases they suggest the necessity of pre-screening.

Cancer control objectives in HNPCC can be realized when patients who are at increased genetic risk receive intensive education about the natural history, as well as the surveillance and management recommendations that this diagnosis entails. It is only when family members are sufficiently informed about all of the pertinent clinical and genetic aspects of HNPCC that they can make the best possible decisions about those cancer control strategies which will likely impact heavily upon their lives. The sum total of these ramifications come under the rubric of genetic counseling. Our experience indicates that genetic counseling must embody all of the trust and confidence which is inherent in a physician/patient relationship. This involves the understanding that one is dealing with an ego-involved patient who may be very anxious and apprehensive about his or her cancer risk, as well as that of siblings and progeny. We have described the importance of psychodynamic factors which impact upon the genetic counseling process and often compel the counselor to assume the role of a psychotherapist.

Recent literature concerning the effects of genetic counselling is reviewed. Although the vast increase in our knowledge about the human genome has opened new possibilities for genetic diagnosis, few scientific investigations consider the questions of the social and individual impact. In general, there is an international consensus that genetic counselling is and should be non-directive, and analyses of reproductive decisions following counselling conclude that it seems to reinforce decisions already made by the families, and that objective genetic risks only play a limited role for the decisions, but the availability of prenatal diagnosis may contribute to the families' desire to have more children.