{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,4,24]],"date-time":"2025-04-24T04:36:33Z","timestamp":1745469393778,"version":"3.40.4"},"reference-count":4,"publisher":"S. Karger AG","issue":"5","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2010,1,1]],"date-time":"2010-01-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1262304000000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/3.0\/"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2010,1,1]],"date-time":"2010-01-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1262304000000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/3.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Public Health Genomics"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2010]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>The new wave of companies offering genome scans direct-to-consumer (DTC) has prompted commentary from scientists, clinicians, bioethicists and those interested in the ethical, legal and social issues arising from genomics. It has thus brought a far wider range of actors into a longstanding debate about the regulation of genetic tests. However, some of the recent discussion is characterised by misunderstanding of the regulatory landscape, a failure to grasp the lessons of the past and lack of clarity of thought. In this commentary I challenge a series of myths and misconceptions which plague current academic and policy discussion: the conflation of regulation and proscription; the failure to recognise that DTC companies are gatekeepers; the assumption that requiring a medical intermediary for testing is paternalistic; the belief that online services cannot be regulated; the presumption that we must avoid genetic exceptionalism; the idea that policy is lagging behind science or that it is too soon to act; and finally, the view that DTC genetics is a reality we have to adapt to.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1159\/000313330","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2010,6,28]],"date-time":"2010-06-28T07:12:47Z","timestamp":1277709167000},"page":"322-326","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":12,"title":["Myths, Misconceptions and Myopia: Searching for Clarity in the Debate about the Regulation of Consumer Genetics"],"prefix":"10.1159","volume":"13","author":[{"given":"S.","family":"Hogarth","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"127","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2010,6,25]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2217%2Fpme.09.63"},{"key":"ref2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2307%2F797443"},{"key":"ref3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1146%2Fannurev.genom.9.081307.164319"},{"key":"ref4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1001%2Fjama.274.20.1627"}],"container-title":["Public Health Genomics"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Article\/Pdf\/313330","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Article\/Pdf\/313330","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Article\/Pdf\/313330","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,4,23]],"date-time":"2025-04-23T19:10:58Z","timestamp":1745435458000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/karger.com\/article\/doi\/10.1159\/000313330"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2010]]},"references-count":4,"journal-issue":{"issue":"5","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2010,6,1]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2010,6,28]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1159\/000313330","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["1662-4246","1662-8063"],"issn-type":[{"type":"print","value":"1662-4246"},{"type":"electronic","value":"1662-8063"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2010]]}}}