Are Research Papers Reporting Results from Nutrigenetics Clinical Research a Potential Source of Biohype?

Abstract

Nutrigenetics is a promising field, but the achievability of expected benefits is challenged by the methodological limitations that are associated with clinical research in that field. The mere existence of these limitations suggests that promises about potential outcomes may be premature. Thus, benefits claimed in scientific journal articles in which these limitations are not acknowledged might stimulate biohype. This article aims to examine whether nutrigenetics clinical research articles are a potential source of biohype. Of the 173 articles identified, 16 contained claims in which clinical applications were extrapolated from study results. The methodological limitations being incompletely acknowledged, these articles could potentially be a source of biohype.

Personalised nutrition and health

“…Personalised nutrition has raised expectations similar to the excitement that has surrounded other scientific developments in their early stages. Scientists working in this area have expressed concerns about overpromising, 29 30 individually 31 32 as well as through institutional guidelines and statements. 33 34 35 36 37 38 Highest expectations arise from the suggestion that genetic information might be used to define personalised dietary recommendations.…”

Risks of nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics? What the scientists say

“…Based on the NIH definition of clinical research (NIH Office of Extramural Research 2011), all interventional and/or observational studies that involved human beings as participants were considered, while studies limited to the analysis of human cells or tissues only with no other active human participation were excluded. That analysis highlighted scientific and ethical challenges of NGx research and its current or future applications (Hurlimann et al 2011;Stenne et al 2012). 1 To ensure an in-depth interpretation of those results, we drew upon the expertise of researchers at the forefront of NGx development.…”

“…All statements in Fig. 1, except statements 1d and 1f, were extracted from peer-reviewed scientific publications of NGx clinical study results (Stenne et al 2012(Stenne et al , 2013. Statements 1d and 1f, as well as statements 2i-2 m (Fig.…”

“…There is no inherent harm in being optimistic about the promises of NGx. When the claims are premature, unrealistic or exaggerated, however, they can feed into biotype detrimental to credible biomedical research (Stenne et al 2012). Expectations related to genetic technologies have evolved and matured over time and it is now generally accepted that most diseases are subject to complex gene(s)-gene(s), as well as to gene(s)-environment interactions (Janssens and van Duijn 2008).…”

“…Ethical issues raised by NGx are considered important and debated by other authors (Chadwick 2004;Bergmann et al 2008;Lévesque et al 2008;Reilly and Debusk 2008;Ries and Castle 2008;Ghosh 2009;Komduur et al 2009;Korthals 2011;Görman et al 2013;Nordström et al 2013). Challenges linked to the selection of participants in NGx clinical research, including claims about potential benefits, raise a cautionary call (Hurlimann et al 2011;OMICS-ETHICS Research Group 2012Stenne et al 2012Stenne et al , 2013. Researchers investigating Dutch nutrigenomics experts' and consumers' views and expectations about NGx development emphasized the importance of taking into account all stakeholders' views Ronteltap et al 2008).…”