Privacy of DNA Information

 

The Whitehouse wants to ban genetic bias. In this USA Today article, the following is being proposed:

The White House ban would:

What do you think about this? Should insurance companies be regulated in this way. Is our DNA information private? How does it differ from a standard medical record?

Bio 4 Home Page

Submitted Comments

 

Brendan Greenhalgh
Tue May 23 08:48:59 UTC+1000 2000
privacy is already gone. who cares about dna privacy?
Nathan Szejniuk (2)
Wed Mar 15 15:33:58 EST 2000
I re-read my first comments and a few more. Now that I am working on a masters in Occupational Health and Safety and I have a deep appreciation for medical research and OSHA as a whole. Privacy is a critical issue. Allowing such roadmaps to each person is tant-amount to giing them your house keys. What the HELL are we thinking? YES, our DNA is private??? The standard medical record is not private when people call you up and tell things only others entrusted with that information should know. What about the blood INSURANCE companys do now? How do I know they are ot sampling for other things thant what they are to sample for? How do I and others our DNA from blood cells are not being spliced or played with? INSURANCE companies need REGULATION - YES!!! Get a life? Make such a survey part of the census- DUH!!!
Nathan M. Szejniuk
Wed Sep 01 13:36:42 GMT-0400 (1999
My grandfather was murdered by the very people who felt him inferior because of who he was. Why then would we want any company to discriminate on the basis of our genes if we will not tolerate discrimination on the basis of gender, age, race, creed, etc. To much information is available now to insurance companies, banks and such. DNA testing is not acceptable even for workplace safety. The genes are not unsafe it is the person who mut be taught to unlearn unsafe habits in favors of the logical reasons for safe habits. On the other hand, understanding genes can lead to cures for cancer and other problems. We must demand that those who misue or misappropriate such personal data are publicly and severely punished. Don't get me wrong! I'd like a cure for the common cold. What I don't want is a cure-all for common sociopsychopath who happens to be brilliant or charismatic to be able to use when they are unenlightened. Basically those who pedal hate.
Robert Walther
Thu Feb 05 18:34:33 1998
I also agree with the ban mainly because I fear that employers would limit job opportunities to those who did not "test" as well as others. We as a society must be aware that there are people who are so hungry for money and power that they will use whatever advantage they can to "make it to the top." One business leader who decides to test employees could set a very dangerous trend in the world's corporation struggle. I remember another leader who also tried to play a genetics advantage to its fullest back in the 1940's. Let us not forget what power and money cause certain people to do. Let us impose this ban so those people do not lawfully have the means to abuse genetics.
Julie Calderon
Wed Feb 04 23:44:27 1998
I agree with the ban in order to ensure the safety of employees from being discriminated against because of their genetic makeup. Similar actions have been taken with regards to the HIV virus. Yet, at the same time, I think that precautions need to be taken in order to create a safe work environment for the other employees. The third section of the ban should provide for this but I am a little skeptical that it doesn't exactly go far enough.
Stephanie Adamson
Wed Jan 28 13:42:59 1998
While I agree that some action needs to take place to prevent blatant abuse of genetic information in the workplace leading to discrimination, it is important to be careful when enacting any legislation. Laws are much more difficult to undo than they are to make. One problem with legislation against the use of genetic information is defining what genetic information is. For example, your blood type is genetic, but can be determined from many other tests beside genetic ones, so is one's cholesterol level and blood pressure, as well as genetic disorders such as sickle cell anemia. Because it is so difficult to distinguish genetic information from the rest of our medical information, it may be more appropriate to concentrate on medical records privacy rather than genetic information privacy. Furthermore, if we are quickto rush into legislation to ban access to genetic information, these laws may be used to define genetic information in research areas, and in some cases may create more obstaces to researchers than we would like. Finally, it is important to note that the government is attempting to legislate an area in a proactive rather than reactive manner. While genetic discrimination is a very real possibility which needs to be addressed, to date there have been only a handful of cases of genetic discrimination. Therefore much of the legislation being proposed is more to quell the fears of the public rather than a response to actual abuses.
Randy Choiniere
Tue Jan 27 17:04:57 1998
The ban seems pretty fair to me. I don't think that people should be discriminated against for their genes. Like Ritika said, if a person is raised in an environment which can prevent certain genetic predispositions from developing, genetic testing may not be valid. However, I think once a trait or disease starts to make itself present, appropriate action is justified.
Ritika Nandkeolyar
Thu Jan 22 19:48:28 1998
We know, thanks to Bio 4, that genes are only possible blueprints of our physical identity, they do not precisely map each facet of our identity. Scientists disagree as to the degree that environmental conditioning interacts with genetic prelidictions in determining a personality and an individual. Unlike conventional medical tests - blood, x-ray, DNA test results can be read subjectively, with even experts disagreeing on implications.And if experts are confused it is unfair to expect laymen (and women) to do better and base life-altering decisions on these tests. This is similiar to the confusion surronding cloning. People don't have a clear understanding of basic facts - for example, that identical twins are natural clones since they share the same genetic makeup. Until people have a better understanding of the implications of genetic technology, the only effect of allowing employers to have access to the results of genetic tests would be invasion of the employee's privacy.Therefore, I would have to agree with Christine and Megan in their support of the White House Ban.
Megan Beck
Thu Jan 22 08:27:32 1998
I agree that the ban on employers having access to genetic information is important and necessary. Genetic topics have recently become front-page news stories, and more and more people are being exposed to the idea of genetic testing, cloning, and other related topics. However, I believe the majority of people know only enough about the subject to spark their imaginations and fears. I think that the ban is important in reassuring individuals who have a high risk of inheriting a genetic disorder (and thus may benefit greatly from gentic testing and early diagnosis) that this information, should the choose to have the test, is completely private and can not be used by their employer or insurance company to discriminate against them.
Christine Percheski
Wed Jan 21 16:01:13 1998
I think this ban is extremely important in protecting privacy rights and the right to get medical coverage. I think our DNA is private and differs considerably from standard medical records. Enclosed in our DNA is information about every aspect of our biological makeup. When we go to the doctor, we are are authorizing them to put private, personal information on a record that can be read by others. To allow employers unauthorized access to information involuntarily collected is wrong because it violates our right to privacy.