Slashdot Mirror


California Cracks Down On Genetic Testing

genie-out-of-the-bottle writes "California's Department of Public Health has sent cease-and-desist notices to 13 companies that market genetic testing directly to consumers. (We discussed these services when they launched.) Allegedly, under state law, California residents must submit a doctor's order to have a genetic test run. It will be interesting to see if the government will actually succeed in putting the genetic genie back in the bottle, given that all you need for testing is a few drops of saliva. The effort closely resembles US government attempts to block export of strong encryption product back in '90s." A Wired editor has up an opinion piece arguing that his DNA is his business and none of the government's.

15 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. You don't own your DNA by Reverend528 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Regulation should protect me from bodily harm and injury, not from information that's mine to begin with.

    Sorry Tom, but the information isn't yours. Much of "your" DNA is patented. If you don't intend to pay the licensing fees, then you should expect to receive a C&D shortly.

    1. Re:You don't own your DNA by MiniMike · · Score: 5, Funny

      I bet they'll want the first instance of derivative works too...

    2. Re:You don't own your DNA by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Informative

      Patenting DNA was a problem maybe 10 or so years ago, but since then much of the patents and patentable information on DNA has been collected in open repositories of information. Drug companies have found it much more lucrative to open up this information and share it with other companies rather than keep it to themselves - shouldn't be too surprising to open-source enthusiasts. Instead, they have been concentrating on deriving income further downstream from the drugs produced from the DNA data. Right now, most of your DNA is open-source.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    3. Re:You don't own your DNA by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

      The issue is that these companies did not create the DNA. It was yet another abuse of the patent system, and the courts and the government didn't have the balls to ban it outright. If it ain't an invention, it shouldn't be patentable.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:You don't own your DNA by stranger_to_himself · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A lot of commercial genetic testing is scientifically worthless, even harmful if they give you bad information about what your genetics actually means for you or your children. There needs to be some kind of regulation (regarding claims they can make, information supplied to customers, actual evidence for the disease-test relationship they claim etc), but at the moment the public health people can't agree on what form that regulation should take, so there might be a lot of this 21st century snake-oil around for a long time.

      I don't know anything about California, but it could be that the government is trying to protect people from possible harms of bad and unnecessary testing.

    5. Re:You don't own your DNA by WaltBusterkeys · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a pretty common misperception that somehow humans would have to pay license fees for use of DNA.

      What was being patented was a purified sequence of DNA for use in a diagnostic test. It's not the DNA itself--there's 10 million years of prior art for that--but the use of a particular sequence of DNA for diagnostics.

      The total human genome is over 3 billion base pairs. Companies were racing to figure out which small sequences (100 or so pairs) would be useful in diagnostics and possibly in therapy. The use of DNA for that purpose was completely new at the time.

      For example, check out this DNA patent application. The application refers to a specific DNA sequence, but the patent itself is for the use of that particular sequence for a specific kind of therapy.

      It's still perfectly legal to reproduce, sell your DNA in a bottle, and so forth. The only thing the patent covers is the use of one very short sequence in a particular kind of therapy.

      It might still be bad policy, but it's not as if you don't own your DNA.

    6. Re:You don't own your DNA by glittalogik · · Score: 4, Funny

      Blood? pfft. I've got some DNA for 'em right here.

  2. Maybe it's actually a good thing by locallyunscene · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think this has more to do with privacy than "keeping your data from you". Ask it stands now what's to stop you from sending a cheek swab with your neighbor's DNA instead of yours under a false name? If a doctor is involved at least the perpetrator must make a face to face appearance under the fake name with someone who would be "accountable" before being able to carry through with his plan.

    1. Re:Maybe it's actually a good thing by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think this has more to do with privacy than "keeping your data from you". Ask it stands now what's to stop you from sending a cheek swab with your neighbor's DNA instead of yours under a false name? If a doctor is involved at least the perpetrator must make a face to face appearance under the fake name with someone who would be "accountable" before being able to carry through with his plan.


      Perhaps what should be banned is accepting DNA samples indirectly.
      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  3. I do support this, in some ways. by Paranatural · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As I understand it, you don't actually have to be present at their offices to provide the DNA Sample.

    What kind of crap is this? So, basically, I could collect the saliva (Don't ask how) of various people I know, send it in, and have ready access to their genetic information? HIPAA should be all over this like white on rice. With no actual strong safeguards on this stuff anyone could theoretically easily gain access to your genetic profile.

    A better solution is to be able to do it freely, you actually have to show up at the lab and be able to certify you are who you say you are. Perfect? No, but better than how it was being done.

    1. Re:I do support this, in some ways. by Paranatural · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because without the ability to read it we lack the ability to use it to discriminate.

      Say, for instance, your employer were able to collect you DNA. How is immaterial at the moment. Your company does this, and gets you profiled. Uh-oh, high risk for cancer. So they fire you so their insurance premiums won't go up. Also, can you imagine how much that information is worth to your insurance company?

      Yes, there are already some laws on the books against genetic discrimination, but a lot of places don't have to tell you why they fired you, and if you didn't know they got the DNA...

      Besides, it's just plain a privacy issue. My DNA is my business. Not yours. However, with the mail-in DNA testing, if you were to get some of my DNA, you could find out what's in my DNA. Why do you think you should have that right?

  4. Not just with genetic testing by sammaverick · · Score: 5, Informative

    California requires a doctor's order form for not just genetic testing. The company I work for (www.biophysicalcorp.com)(is it kosher for me the link my company here?) does direct-to-consumer blood/ biomarker testing, and for California and about 9 other states, the individual consumer can not just order the test from us, they have to have their doctor sign a order form (Which creates a hassle for us and the client).

    Heck, in a few states (Cali included) we can't even send the client their report, we have to send it to the doctor's office.

    I am pretty sure this law is in effect partially to protect the interests of the doctors in general.

    --
    [insert generic slashdot meme]
  5. Re:Doctors contribute to government corruption. by Robert1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually it won't be rubber stamped. Unless the individual has some family history of the genetic disease or symptoms which are suggestive of it genetic testing is NOT OFFERED by physicians.

    Likewise if a family member has such symptoms or his side of the family has these traits, genetic testing is disallowed unless the person actually agrees to it. I.e. a wife wants to know if her husband has Huntington's, she cannot force him to take a test or bring a sample to a physician and ask for it to be tested. Even if she only wants the information for future conception, the doctor won't allow it.

    What's to keep someone - anyone - your wife, boss, insurer, whoever, from taking that toothpick you used after lunch and sending it in to one of these companies?

    I think the law is intended to protect YOU from others, not from yourself. If you actually have some problem then you can go to a physician and have total confidence that the only person who will know the result is you and him. Hell, you can even withhold it from him if you wish. As it is now a person can send in ANYONE'S DNA and get their result.

    I'd rather go to a doctor than leave that second option as a possibility. That's the option that leads down the road to real Gattaca-style shit. It's a future I'd rather NOT live in.

  6. Re:Doctors contribute to government corruption. by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Funny
    What's to keep someone - anyone - your wife, boss, insurer, whoever, from taking that toothpick you used after lunch and sending it in to one of these companies?

    Please, that will never happen. You're just being paranoid. And of course, such irrational paranoia is exactly the type of behavior I would expect, given that you have a repeating ATTCAGGGATTAG sequence on your chromosome 3, which results in a 500% increase in the risk of developing paranoid schizophrenia.

  7. All our base pair are belong to us? by RDW · · Score: 4, Informative

    'I don't know anything about California, but it could be that the government is trying to protect people from possible harms of bad and unnecessary testing.'

    The interesting thing is that this technology is evolving so rapidly that the type of testing California is cracking down on is going to look quaintly prehistoric in just a few years. Roche is expected to launch a commercial high resolution version of its 'sequence capture' platform in the next few months which, combined with a 'next generation' sequencing system (like Roche's own 454 machine), should allow complete human 'exomes' (all the well-defined mature gene transcript sequences in a sample) to be completely sequenced for a few thousand dollars. But this, of course, is just the first step. One or more of the future sequencing technologies currently in development is likely to bring entire human genome sequences into this price range:

    http://genomics.xprize.org/

    with the eventual Holy Grail of a '$1000 genome' now seeming pretty much inevitable. But some of the teams competing for the genomics X-prize don't intend to stop there - e.g., Reveo claims to be aiming to produce a practical nanotechnology-based instrument 'in 5-10 years that will cost less than $1000 and sequence the whole genome and simultaneously the epigenome (methylation code) nearly error free in a minute for pennies per genome.'

    So what happens if it's possible to buy an extreme throughput sequencer for the price of a laptop, and decode a genome as effortlessly as cracking CSS on a DVD? Is this particular genie really likely to stay in the bottle? And is it in any case defensible that knowledge of an individual's genome should ('for his own good') remain the province of an exclusive medical priesthood, rather than of the individual himself?