Should i test my genes bbc2

Paul's optimism and good humour richly deserved success, and, one hopes, a sustained period without unusually heavy rainfall. Adam Wishart has made excellent programmes that patrol the shifting border between medical advances and ethical norms, but Should I Test My Genes?

The Price of Life turned out to be a little disappointing. But also because Wishart seemed to have succumbed to a mild case of Documentarist's Solipsism here, that first-person style that invariably seems to hint that the subject is important mostly because it's happening to the director.

Fair enough, I suppose, given that his own family history of cancer was the starting point for his investigations of genetic screening, but the shots of him looking pensive in the rain were still a misjudgement.

Did he shout "Action" first and then adopt the glum expression, I kept wondering. And how did his face change when he thought he'd got enough existential dilemma in the can? Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies. Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today. Already subscribed? Adam's aunt did not have a predisposition to developing cancer, he discovered. Adam also had the test to see if he had inherited a 'cancer gene' from his mother.

The documentary compared genetic testing carried out on the NHS to commercial testing via the internet. Adam decided to pay for a commercial test.

He discovered commercial websites highlighted the importance of genetic knowledge and sold a notion of body ownership and control. The decision of whether or not to be tested was well covered in the documentary. Adam met Alex whose mother suffered from Huntington's disease caused by a faulty gene on chromosome four.

The faulty gene leads to damage to nerve cells in the brain. Alex struggled to decide whether or not to be tested and thought about the implications for her and her daughter. She decided not to take the test, which made Adam reconsider the notion that information is key - in this case it seemed like 'opening Pandora's Box'.

The effect of genetic testing was also explored, especially the effect on Julie who had an 80 percent chance of developing breast cancer. She decided to have a double mastectomy to dramatically reduce her chances of developing the condition. The personal cost to Julie was clearly captured by the documentary, including her emotional turmoil about 'mutilating' her body. Julie wished she had not been tested for 'breast cancer genes'.

The documentary also dealt with PGD - the screening of eight-cell embryos for genetic conditions. The use of PGD was well discussed and the documentary showed the successful process for Tracey and Thomas. The couple had experienced several miscarriages and lost twin boys due to a genetic fault in Thomas' father's family.

The chances of being successful through PGD are low: out of the 20 eggs harvested from Tracey only six fertilised. Out of those six, only three were viable for PGD and only one didn't have Thomas' genetic mutation. The documentary tried to provide some balance about the possible negative implications of genetic testing.

By using PGD we may risk selecting out evolutionary advantages along with the mutated genes. Adam also met Professor Steve Humphries, an expert in the genetics of cardiovascular disease from University College London, to discuss the lack of testing for familial hypercholesteroleamia FH. FH leads to dangerous high cholesterol, which can cause heart attacks. Another visit was to Helen and her family who all have sickle cell anaemia - a genetic condition only inherited if both parents are carriers.

Your guide to what to watch next - no spoilers, we promise Email address is invalid Thank you for subscribing!

Sorry, there was a problem. More from Culture. Film Home Sweet Home Alone is homophobic, racist and uncomically vicious. Merry Christmas!