A testing time for your finances

Could our genetic fingerprint determine our access to health and life insurance, what career we can enter and even how much money we have to retire on? The prospect is far more likely than most people realise, say experts, who warn that within years our genes could be one of the biggest factors in our personal finances.

Dr Helen Wallace, head of GeneWatch, a genetics watchdog, says: "There is a risk we will see the creation of a genetic underclass in the next decade. They will be excluded from health insurance, certain jobs and disadvantaged financially."

At the heart of the problem is the expected rapid growth in genetic testing for diseases. Dr Douglas Easton, of Cambridge University's department of public health and primary care, says: "Over the next five to 10 years individual testing will become more common. Our understanding of how specific genes relate to fatal disease will also develop and we will have a better understanding of how gene groups lead to the development of conditions like arthritis and diabetes."

The former head of the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline, Sir Richard Sykes, predicts that in 20 years most people in developed countries will receive "pre-symptomatic treatment" while they are still healthy. Genetic testing's predictive capability will lead the way to make this possible.

The Government too is hoping genetic profiling will keep us healthier and so reduce National Health Service spending. It has asked the Human Genetics Commission, an advisory group, to study the possibility of screening new-born babies to create a DNA data base.

But some people are already testing themselves. Martin Woodward, a 54-year-old commercial diver from Bembridge on the Isle of Wight, purchased a home testing kit from the Hampshire-based Sciona, one of the few UK companies offering personal genetic tests. He says: "It cost me just over £100. It came with information on what you could find out and how it could help you, and a mouth swab to collect the DNA."

Mr Woodward used the swab and sent it back to Sciona for analysis. "I wasn't nervous about the results," he says, "I looked forward to it. I have regular health screens anyway, even though I feel healthy, and I didn't see much difference between those and the DNA test."

The results arrived in the post and showed he had very little to worry about. He says: "Everything was fine. If I had found a nasty surprise I still would have preferred to know about it. I would like the opportunity to prepare myself physically and financially."

But widespread genetic testing is being eyed with a mix of desire and dread by the financial community.

The insurance industry has already staked its marker. It has won the right to demand genetic tests results where they show that a person has the gene that will lead to Huntington's disease, a terminal genetic illness. Those unlucky enough to have the gene will be refused life and health insurance.

But insurers want more. Through the Department of Health's Genetics and Insurance Committee, insurers are now lobbying for access to results that reveal genes likely to lead to early-onset Alzheimer's disease and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Like those with Huntington's disease, people with these genes are likely to be barred from health and life insurance policies.

The Government and insurers have agreed to a moratorium on the use of genetic testing for insurance purposes until the end of 2006.

Insurers' concerns are understandable, because genetic testing could drive them out of business. People who know they are at risk of illness or early death are more likely to take out policies than those with robust genes. Over time, insurers will find themselves insuring a riskier customer pool, payouts will rise, as will premiums, until only the most ill are left, paying massive premiums but leaving little behind in profit for the insurers.

Leoni Edwards, of the Association of British Insurers, says: "We are not in a position to say what will happen after that period. It will depend on where science has progressed to and the outcome of a public debate that needs to happen."

But it is not just people's ability to take out insurance that could be determined by genetics. It may affect their retirement, too.

David Marlow, head of marketing at the financial adviser the Annuity Bureau, says: "Final salary schemes often offer generous early-retirement packages for people who can't work or have proof that they will die early. These are subsidised by people that work through to retirement age. In an effort to be fair, trustees of pension schemes may want to take genetic test results into account."

One area that is sure to feel the impact of increased genetic testing is annuities, which are purchased using a personal pension and pay an income for the life of the owner. Smokers and those who have had a serious illness can already buy "impaired life" or "enhanced life" annuities that pay higher incomes in the expectation that they will die earlier. Proof that a person's genes are likely to condemn them to an early grave could be used to obtain the same benefit. On the down side, a robust set of genes could see a person's retirement income reduced.

Genetic make-up could also affect the kind of work people are allowed to do. Dr Wallace says: "We know that some employers are keen to test workers for their genetic pre-disposition to illnesses caused by work."

In a study of company directors, conducted by the Institute of Directors in conjunction with Sheffield University, 50 per cent of respondents supported the idea of voluntary genetic testing in the work place. Some 16 per cent said it should be compulsory.

Worryingly, three respondents out of 437 surveyed said their organisations already used genetic testing regularly. In the US, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railway company was ordered last year to pay $2.2m (£1.3m) compensation to 36 employees who were tested without their knowledge.

The argument for testing is that it would make work safe. People whose genes suggest they will be allergic to certain pollutants could be kept away from work in which they are likely to come in to contact with them; those likely to speed the onset of arthritis by typing might be kept away from desk jobs.

Dr Wallace says: "An acceptance of that sort of testing removes the impetus from the employer to improve work conditions. And it opens up a whole new front for discrimination."

At the moment, there is nothing to stop companies asking employees to take genetic tests, and passing the result to a third party. Regulations covering genetic information are non-existent, and laws that might govern such information are untested. There are also no laws against discrimination on the basis of a person's genes.

Dr Wallace says: "We don't know who will be able to access this information in the future, or what it could be used for. It is time for a serious public debate."