Arguments for and against the whole-genome sequencing of newborns

Recent decades have brought enormous progress in both genetics and genomics, as well as in information technology (IT). The sequence of the human genome is now known, and although our knowledge is far from complete, great progress has been made in understanding how the genome works. With the developments in storage capacity, artificial intelligence, and learning algorithms, we are now able to learn and interpret complex systems such as the human genome in a very short time. Perhaps the most important goal of learning about the human genome is to understand diseases better: how they develop; how their processes can be prevented or slowed down; and after diseases have developed, how they can be cured or their symptoms alleviated. The vast majority of diseases have a genetic background, i.e., genes, sequence variations, and gene-gene interactions play a role in most diseases to a greater or lesser extent. Accordingly, the first step is to discover which genes, or genomic variants, cause or contribute to the development of a particular disease in a given patient. Given that an individual's genome remains virtually unchanged throughout their life (with one or two exceptions, such as in the case of cancer, which is caused by somatic mutations), it might be considered advantageous to sequence the genome of every person at birth. In this paper, we set out to show the possible benefits of sequencing the entire genome of every human being at birth, while also discussing the main arguments against it.