ArticleJournal of community genetics2025
The UK National screening committee, the newborn genomes programme, and the ethical conundrum for UK newborn screening.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Considering seriousness in preconception carrier screening: a framework to support policy deliberation.Journal of community genetics · 2026Review
- Acceptability of newborn screening for spinal muscular atrophy: views of the UK public, screened families, health professionals and the SMA community.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Circulating Biomarkers for the Early Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Countries in the Global North use biochemical tests to screen for at least 20 diseases in newborns, while in the UK, only 10 diseases are screened for. The United Kingdom National Screening Committee (UKNSC) is the entity responsible for making recommendations to the government with regards to which conditions should be included in the Newborn Screening (NBS) programme. Examination of the meeting minutes of the UKNSC between 2015 and 2022 revealed that no new diseases were recommended for NBS during this period. If there was no 'effective treatment' for the disease it was rejected for NBS. In 2022, the Newborn Genomes Programme (NGP) was announced; a research study aiming to screen for over 223 rare genetic diseases using whole genome sequencing technology in newborns. While this could lead to a seismic expansion of NBS in the UK, many of the diseases included in the programme are currently considered 'actionable' rather than 'treatable' conditions. This poses an ethical conundrum for the UKNSC, which is involved in both NBS and NGP, given that it has thus far made recommendations against the expansion of the NBS programme using available biochemical assays, contrary to what has been implemented in other countries in the Global North. In this paper, we aim to critically examine the processes and circumstances that have held back the expansion of the NBS programme in the UK, as compared with other countries, focusing on the period 2015-2022, when no new diseases were added to the UK NBS programme, and contrast them with the drivers that have led to the support and funding for the NGP during this same time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.