Consumer Genetic Testing Available In Australia

Megaport writes "After the banning of direct-to-consumer genetic testing in Australia last July, new rules were imposed to require a physician to be involved in the process. Now a new Australian start-up, Lumigenix, has launched a genome decoding service for Australian (and global) consumers that meets the new regulatory requirements. Their products include genetic testing for health and ancestry information. The Australian government is planning to revisit the issue later this year and further regulation is anticipated in response to the emergence of direct-to-consumer genetic services."

Comments

Employers

[Billly Gates]

So how long will it be before employers require this testing to screen applicants out for learning disabilities, probabilities of alcoholism/addiction, and probability of getting cancer?

Re:Employers

[laughingcoyote]

Hrm. They made one of those things, called a "law", that's the initial subject of this article. I wonder if the Australian government could make another one of these "law" things to prohibit exactly that type of abuse and specify that no one is permitted to request that someone get genetic test results or favor those who provide them? Seems it'd be a good use for such a thing.

Re:Employers

[SpinningAround]

A better question is- do the results of voluntary genetic testing fall under the ' full disclosure' clauses in your typical health insurance policy? You know. The clauses under which you agree to disclose anything that you, or a generic but legally 'reasonable' version of you might have some bearing on your policy.

Not so much of an issue in Oz, where private health insurance works very differently than in the US. Might be more of a concern for those dwelling across the Pacific...

Re:Employers

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The US has a law on the subject, forbidding insurers to take your genetic information into account:
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/gina.cfm

Re:Employers

[Opportunist]

Oh, we from $big_insurance have no problem with that, the law forbids us to require a gene test before insuring you. That's certainly no problem for us and we will comply with that law fully. We will insure you any time even without a genetic test for a fee of $fee_suitable_for_ultra_high_risk_people. Of course, if you voluntarily provide a gene test, we might offer discounts.

We certainly and wholeheartedly welcome this law. If we'd be allowed to require such a test, we might have to pay for it instead of you.

Same way around for employing. We can't require a gene test from you, but without we only employ you at minimum wage. For more, bring a gene test result (all voluntary, of course). Also, be prepared to be the first person fired if you don't, after all, everyone else did (since they didn't want to work for minimum pennies), so you must have some sort of genetic disorder and we're probably better off without you.

Seriously, though. Money talks, and often it talks its way out of legal corners. If a company wants to do something it is not allowed, they sure find a way to make it "interesting" to comply with their wishes.

Re:Employers

[zblack_eagle]

Too bad we have universal healthcare here in Australia. Private health insurance is generally such bad value that it needs a 30% government rebate and the 1% extra tax if your income is above a certain threshhold if you don't get private coverage to make it somewhat 'competitive'.

Re:Employers

[Opportunist]

If Orwell could see our world today he'd probably cry out "Dammit, that was a warning not a bloody manual".

Re:Employers

[Zouden]

That's only a concern in the US. In the rest of the developed world (including Australia), anyone can get health insurance regardless of their DNA. I genuinely feel sorry for you that your country has created a situation where your first thought about technology like this is how big companies will use it to screw you over.

It's also illegal for employers to require genetic testing to screen applicants. I'm pretty sure that's illegal in the US as well, and there's nothing to indicate that will change. So I really don't know what the GP is basing his paranoia on.

Re:Employers

[Cimexus]

Um what? This has no relevance to Australia, since:

a) we have public universal single-payer healthcare; and

b) even if you choose to have private health insurance, it has nothing, whatsoever, to do with your employer. You choose a company and buy the insurance, just like it was house insurance or car insurance. You can do it over the phone in a few minutes, no tests required.

Re:Employers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that's exactly how the universal health care works. A certain percentage of your income above a certain value, capped at some other value.

The direct levy is under 2%. You pay a higher levy if you are above a certain threshold and do not also have private health care (so it can be more expensive *not* to have basic private care).

Also, private health care is community rated, so you don't pay more or get rejected if you are in poor health or have pre-existing conditions (there may be waiting periods before claiming -- e.g. 18 months before a hip replacement). Recently they have also made it cheaper for life if you start out with private health insurance before age 30.

And why would my employer need to be involved?

As an Australian it still amazes me why the US has a health care system set up like those in 3rd world countries.

How is the false paternity rate in Austrailia?

[gmhowell]

Wonder how the false paternity rate is in Austrailia. I'm sure it's about to go down. Remember guys, genetic testing on day zero.

Re:How is the false paternity rate in Austrailia?

[MichaelSmith]

I assure you there is nothing pure about our genes. In fact we are arguably the worlds experts at assimilation. The city of Bendigo in Victoria used to be a third Chinese. It still is but you won't see many Chinese faces there.

Re:How is the false paternity rate in Austrailia?

[Cimexus]

Err what?

This might have been accurate 60 years ago but modern Australia is a melting pot - comparable with the US in its immigration heyday. Today, over one-quarter of Australians were born overseas. Not merely 'have ancestors from overseas' - 25% were actually ~born~ overseas and have become naturalised Australians during their lifetimes. What's more, a full 5% of Australia's population is overseas at any given time, and close to 50% of people travel outside the country at least once a year. So the rate of people meeting and marrying overseas (and hence bringing back family) is higher than in many countries.

Hell I'm not even 30 years old and the population of Australia has risen by 50% just during my lifetime. That's almost entirely immigration-related (our natural birth rate would barely replace deaths).

In my workplace I can only think of 2 or 3 people who were actually born in Australia. The rest? Several Chinese, a few Indians, a Singaporean, a few Brits, a Sri Lankan, heaps of New Zealanders, and even a Canadian and two or three Americans. My wife (who is herself an immigrant) was stunned when she started working in Australia: "Almost everyone at my work is from a different country. There's like 20 different accents among 30 people!"

Anyway, point is, Australia is pretty multicultural these days and generally does a decent job of integrating immigrants into society. Not perfect by any stretch, but at least you don't get anywhere near the degree of 'people clumping only in their own ethnic neighbourhoods' as you do in some other nations.

Moving goal posts

[Andy Smith]

Regardless of the ethics, controversy, or popularity of whatever is being regulated, regulation should, once set, remain largely unchanged. If the government sets out rules for business to operate, then a business following those rules -- not "working around" them -- should be able to continue trading. If the government then adjusts the regulatory rules, specifically to shut down certain businesses, those business should be able to claim compensation, which of course would come from our taxes. We may or may not like what a particular company is doing, but if we (via government) tell them it's okay to go ahead and start-up, we shouldn't set about shutting them down shortly after.

What I'm trying to say is, governments shouldn't mess people around by giving them a set of rules and then changing the rules.

Re:Moving goal posts

[gmhowell]

More inflexibility in government. I can't possibly see how that could go wrong.

Re:Moving goal posts

[Cimexus]

Haha +1 funny (if I had mod points)...

The Australian Parliament certainly is one of the more entertaining and colourful legislatures to watch ;) It's quite endearing actually, although to foreign, non-Westminster-system eyes, it can seem quite uncivilised and chaotic at times. (For comparison, check out a video of the American Congress sitting ... it's very, very polite and orderly by comparison - no interruptions, no haggling, no jokes at other members' expense, and no cardboard cutouts of the Prime Minister ;)

School creds are so last century

[whiteboy86]

Why bother with schools and diplomas, go straight to the genome. Every new employee at my corporation needs certain DNA preset and only the approved array of good genes.

/s

Gattaca

[SquirrelDeth]

Yay toilet brushes for everyone unless your genes are good enough, that is if we even let you be born.

Re:Scammin'!

[Opportunist]

I was thinking about the same.

Genetic typing is still in its infancy. We're a far cry from knowing just what genetic information leads to which behaviour or problem. We're looking at letters in a book, maybe finding out what certain words mean, but reading "cock" and "ass" and jumping to the conclusion it's gay porn is a bit far of a leap. Could just as well be a child's story about a rooster and a donkey.

Good thing I am in Germany

[trickyD1ck]

Just sent in my sample for 23andMe. It is none of the goverment's business what I do with my saliva.

Because your doctor is an expert?

[Seumas]

You're not prescribing yourself drugs or performing self-surgery, so what's the point of involving a doctor in the process, other than bolstering the medical industry with unnecessary additional bills? I doubt your average family physician knows much more about genetics - especially on any level that would truly be valuable in evaluating a genetic test - than your average slashdotter.

ancestry information..

[Simon Rowe]

you're descended from a criminal.