Can passing antidiscrimination laws ever be a bad idea? Yes, if broad policy reform is abandoned in favor of genetic‐specific legislation. But in spite of its serious flaws, both in concept and in practice, genetic‐specific legislation is sometimes worth passing anyway.

Human genomic information is invested with enormous power in a scientifically motivated society. Genomic information has the capacity to produce a great deal of good for society. It can help identify and understand the etiology and pathophysiology of disease. In so doing, medicine and science can expand the ability to prevent and ameliorate human malady through genetic testing, treatment, and reproductive counseling.Genomic information can just as powerfully serve less beneficent ends. Information can be used to discover deeply personal attributes of (...) an individual's life. That information can be used to invade a person's private sphere, to alter a person's sense of self- and family identity, and to affect adversely opportunities in education, employment, and insurance. Genomic information can also affect families and ethnic groups that share genetic similarities. (shrink)

What is privacy? What does privacy mean in relation to biobanking, in what way do the participants have an interest in privacy, (why) is there a right to privacy, and how should the privacy issue be regulated when it comes to biobank research? A relational view of privacy is argued for in this article, which takes as its basis a general discussion of several concepts of privacy and attempts at grounding privacy rights. In promoting and protecting the rights that participants (...) in biobank research might have to privacy, it is argued that their interests should be related to the specific context of the provision and reception of health care that participation in biobank research is connected with. Rather than just granting participants an exclusive right to or ownership of their health information, which must be waived in order to make biobank research possible, the privacy aspect of health information should be viewed in light of the moral rights and duties that accompany any involvement in a research based system of health services. (shrink)

Only 27 percent of Americans in a 1995 Harris poll said they had read or heard “quite a lot” about genetic tests. Nonetheless, 68 percent said they would be either “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to undergo genetic testing even for diseases “for which there is presently no cure or treatment.” Perhaps most astonishing, 56 percent found it either “very” or “somewhat acceptable” to develop a government computerized DNA bank with samples taken from all newborns, and their names attached to (...) the samples. This does not necessarily mean the public is unconcerned about genetic privacy. More likely it means that the public is still uninformed about the risks associated with genetic testing, and has not thought at all about the risks involved in storing identifiable DNA samples.A central question presented by genetic screening and testing is whether the genetic information so obtained is different in kind from other medical information, and, if so, whether this means that it should receive special legal protection. (shrink)

Until approximately twenty years ago, advances in the study of human genetics had little influence on the practice of medicine. In the 1980s, this changed dramatically with the mapping of the altered genes that cause cystic fibrosis and Huntington disease. In just a few years, these discoveries led to DNA-based tests that enabled clinicians to determine whether prospective parents were carriers of CF or whether an individual carried the Huntington gene and, as a result, would almost certainly develop the disease.Observers (...) interested in the social and economic implications of genetic technology realized that such genetic tests could be used by insurance companies to predict which insurance applicants were likely to become ill or even die from these diseases. (shrink)

An article by Melissa Gymrek and colleagues, published this January in Science, described how the researchers used surname inferences from commercial genealogy databases and Internet searches to deduce the identity of nearly fifty research participants whose supposedly private data were stored in large, publicly available datasets. This news comes just months after the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues published a report that expressed serious concerns about personal privacy and security in whole genome sequencing. The bioethics commission (on (...) which we serve as chair and vice‐chair) highlighted the importance of reconciling the enormous public benefits anticipated from research in this area with the potential risks to individuals’ privacy, and it offered several policy proposals to help balance the potential of scientific progress with privacy and respect for persons. The human subjects research protections laid out in the federal regulations are triggered by the identifiability of data. The participants in the Gymrek et al. study were not “readily identifiable”; however, the data proved far more easily identifiable than expected. With rapidly evolving technology, a precise definition of that notion may be impossible. But if we move the debate from the rhetoric of identifiability to the ethical principles of public beneficence and the centrality of respecting all persons, we find that the real ethical focus must be on promoting generalizable progress while at all times respecting individual privacy. (shrink)