Slashdot Mirror
Routine DNA Tests For Newborns Mean Looming Privacy Problems
pogopop77 writes "CNN has an interesting story about how newborn babies in the United States are routinely screened for a panel of genetic diseases. Since the testing is mandated by the government, it's often done without the parents' consent. However, many states store that DNA information indefinitely, and even make it available to researchers with little or no privacy safeguards. Sometimes even the names are attached! Here is information on state-by-state policies (PDF) of the handling of the DNA information."
It will start with insurance companies discriminating against people who are more susceptible to diseases based on DNA.
On the plus side we can all feel safe that the caring benevolent government can track down all those pesky criminals and terrorists and pirates.
Unicode in Slashdot
Not right now. They're still taking...
*sunglasses*
Baby steps.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Since health insurance paid for Isabel's genetic screening, her positive test for a cystic fibrosis gene is now on the record with her insurance company, and the Browns are concerned this could hurt her in the future.
And if the disease is considered genetic by the medical community like Alzheimer's or even high cholesterol, is it going to affect her descendants through the ages forthcoming when they try to get insurance? Already you have people with pre-existing conditions finding it hard to get insurance but I fear of a future where health care crises are addressed by increasing fees passed on to people with genetic disorders and diseases that they not only have no control over but also don't even suffer from yet.
My work here is dung.
Lots of people probably don't mind "the government" keeping their DNA on file, but lots of people probably DO mind private insurance companies having the DNA data:
"Since health insurance paid for Isabel's genetic screening, her positive test for a cystic fibrosis gene is now on the record with her insurance company, and the Browns are concerned this could hurt her in the future.
"It's really a black mark against her, and there's nothing we can do to get it off there," Brown says. "And let's say in the future they can test for a gene for schizophrenia or manic-depression and your baby tests positive -- that would be on there, too."
Brown says if the hospital had first asked her permission to test Isabel, now 10 months old, she might have chosen to pay for it out of pocket so the results wouldn't be known to the insurance company."
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
Sadly, a genotype fingerprint of just 24 well-selected markers is enough to differentiate an individual, with an error rate far lower than 1/ # of people on the planet. So while having names attached to samples is ethically deplorable, in practice it doesn't really even matter. I do genetic research, and the first thing we do is de-identify samples in the database. When we get samples from other sites with names still on them, we get pissed at the site. It's just sloppy, and certainly doesn't help the research.
YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
('cause you forgot the real punchline. This public service announcement added to sneak past the lameness filter.).
At a minimum, HIPAA should apply http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/
My wife does molecular and cytogenetic testing. This was her reaction:
"Over reaction. Yes the state labs keep blood spots...I don't know when anyone would ever want to go back and get a sample with someone's name on it unless they were working on a gene that is on the newborn screening panel. They legally can not use genetic testing to prevent you from getting a job or insurance..and who would. It would take more time and money than it's worth to get that information from a newborn screening card. Everyone is told about newborn screening and everyone has the opportunity to decline. It's a matter of whether you are actually paying attention to what is happening with your child. If you don't understand you have a responsibility to speak up. Newborn screening is important...research on deidentified samples is important. No one is out to get you. No one has the time or energy to get you. Life is not CSI."
The solution is obvious; we just need ways of permanently change our DNA.
If irradiated spiders aren't enough, we can bring back the nuclear testing.
This has the added positive effect of fighting crime.
Don't you remember the 80's and 90's when there was the big push to get your children's registered -- just in case they were abducted. What do you think happened to THOSE databases.
You also can't get fire insurance after your house burns down.
If you already have an expensive condition, the concept of insurance no longer applies to you. It is no longer possible to pool your risk. At that point, you are looking for a SUBSIDY.
Insurance is only possible when you have a large pool of people looking to mitigate the risk of a low probability but high downside event. Mathematically, fire insurance is a terrible purchase. The cost of premiums times the chance of having a claim is WAY higher than the expected payout. But you buy it because the downside is huge and you don't know if you are going to be on the unlucky side or not.
See that "Preview" button?
We used Census records (supposedly secret for a century) to help find Japanese to intern in World War II.
In the same war the Germans, of course, respected no privacy constraints at all, and used any information they could get for all sorts of much more nefarious projects.
I am old enough to remember that, not only were blacks segregated in the South, but that blood tests would be run to determine just who was and wasn't black, in borderline cases. If DNA testing had been available, I have no doubt it would have been used.
So it seems pretty clear that DNA information, if kept indefinitely in an identifiable fashion, will eventually be used maliciously. A long and lamentable history shows that we can count on that. The question is, are we going to act on this knowledge, or do nothing about it, and continue to let things slide into what could be a very nasty future.