With bounding advances in the field of genomics, genetic privacy has sparked a controversy. In the 1980s, the Human Genome Project was established to sequence the entirety of the human genome. The first draft of this project was published in Nature in February, 2001, about 10 percent short of completion (National Institutes of Health [NIH], 2015). Originally, scientists had hypothesized that there was anywhere from 50,000 to 140,000 genes. However, after the release of the first draft and the later completion of the full sequence in April of 2003, it was revealed that there were actually about 20,500 genes (NIH, 2015). Since April 2003, the structure, organization, and function of these many genes has begun to be better understood (NIH, 2015). As genetics moved forward, there was hope of application in the fields of criminal justice and medicine. According to the International Homicide Investigators Association, 40,000 unidentified deaths occur in the United States annually (Willing 2006). That means every year, 40,000 people have families who remain unsure whether their missing loved ones are still alive. If the justice system had access to a national genetic database, this issue could be resolved; if all citizens could provide the justice system with samples of their DNA, criminal cases and missing persons cases could be solved at a more efficient rate. Furthermore, if doctors had access to every patient’s genetic information, they could be informed about possible health
DNA testing is the most accurate way to identify an individual, and should therefore be used to increase the effectiveness of our justice system. This brings to light the issue of genetic privacy. Society questions the motives of government in DNA collection and floods the media, which acts as an informal actor on the court, with ideas of this invasion of privacy and encroachment of biological liberties. The 2010 article, Create a National DNA Database? stated that “such sensitive information is prone to misuse, and one should not have such blind faith in the security of government access to it.” EPIC, the electronic privacy
The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be
With over three million base pairs in the human gene, forensic scientists are able to distinguish a person’s genetic makeup.
Privacy is also another big issue surrounding the plans for a database. Chairman of the New South Wales privacy council says that the prospect of a genetic database is a “cavalier disregard for people’s privacy”
that could still potentially be used for unethical genetic and eugenic experiments if the proper
Bodily privacy is a significant issue in Genetic Profiling, as it is a human right which is in constant need of law reform. Technology is continually advancing, and genetic
Before the 1980s, courts relied on testimony and eyewitness accounts as a main source of evidence. Notoriously unreliable, these techniques have since faded away to the stunning reliability of DNA forensics. In 1984, British geneticist Alec Jeffreys of the University of Leicester discovered an interesting new marker in the human genome. Most DNA information is the same in every human, but the junk code between genes is unique to every person. Junk DNA used for investigative purposes can be found in blood, saliva, perspiration, sexual fluid, skin tissue, bone marrow, dental pulp, and hair follicles (Butler, 2011). By analyzing this junk code, Jeffreys found certain sequences of 10 to 100 base pairs repeated multiple times. These tandem
DNA is considered an individuals genetic fingerprint, thus it is exclusive to each and every individual. Since this exclusivity exists, DNA is a tool used for identification purposes. It has been utilized for investigations of serious crimes, identification of individuals killed in mass disasters, wars and paternity uncertainties1. Since the inception of the use of DNA in the 1980’s thousands of criminals have been caught and prosecuted with the help of DNA evidence2. Additionally, countless victims of mass disasters have been identified through DNA and returned to their loved ones. Although, there are various benefits to employing DNA it does not come without a sundry of ethical and legal concerns. The ethical concerns that have presented themselves are questions involving scientific reliability, DNA evidence in court, human rights, and finally the other uses of the DNA database.
Opponents argue that familial DNA searches invades their constitutional right of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. In addition, to being subjected to same equal burdens that convicted offenders would endure. For instance, people whose only fault is having the misfortune of being biologically related to the convicted offender. The innocent suspect would be burdened with a criminal investigation which can disrupt their lifestyles, such as disrupting their work and family relationships. Frederick Bieber, an authority on familial DNA searches and a medical geneticist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston argues that, “There’s no conflict between developing an investigative lead and protecting the privacy and dignity of individuals” (Ed. Louise I, 1). Basically, law enforcement must consider the interests of the innocent family members when they are investigating crimes.
Genetic testing has become a highly controversial issue among both the general population and the scientific community. It is a process that exposes a person’s entire genome sequence, allowing it to be read and evaluated to identify potential risks for genetic diseases or diseases that could be passed onto offspring (Holt Productions, 2012). With thousands of genetic tests already being used, and more being established, it seems logical to put this growing technology to use. Some agree that it is a person’s right to know and understand his or her genetic makeup. However, others argue that, despite the benefits of genetic testing, caution should be used to carefully inspect the risks associated with this new technology.
As the number and availability of various genetic tests have grown, so too has a fear among Americans that their genetic information may be used for purposes other than curing or preventing diseases. This paper looks at the law Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act passed in 2008 and how it influences the workplace and the health insurance practices.
The genetic technology revolution has proved to be both a blessing and a blight. The Human Genome Project is aimed at mapping and sequencing the entire human genome. DNA chips are loaded with information about human genes. The chip reveals specific information about the individuals’ health and genetic makeup (Richmond & Germov 2009).The technology has been described as a milestone by many in that it facilitates research, screening, and treatment of genetic conditions. However, there have been fears that the technology permits a reduction in privacy when the information is disclosed. Many argue that genetic information can also be used unfairly to discriminate against or stigmatize individuals (Willis 2009).
Genetic information can be identified at any point throughout a person’s lifespan from pre-conception until after death. In addition to heritable, biological information, family history, genetic test results, and medical records are also sources of genetic information” (Jenkins & Lea, 2005). We are put in a position to gather and retain information that could be utilized for a better future, but is confidentiality involved for the sake of profiting? Ask yourself, who should have access to genetic information? Who owns and controls it? How can families resolve conflicts when some members want to be tested for a genetic disorder and others do not?
The fear of genetic discrimination is a phobia gripping many people around the world. People find themselves asking, could my genetic information raise my health bills? Could this cause me to be rejected from a job opportunity? These anxieties are causing people to lash out at genetic research, and ultimately the human genome project. People do not want our understanding of human genomics to advance. This is because the risks of the development of the technology could inflict on them. A major risk is genetic discrimination. I believe that genetic discrimination is wrong and governments should continue to prevent it because it is an invasion of privacy, it violates equity, and it could really hurt people with genetic
The human genome project is something that I have been very interested with ever since first learning of it. I had heard bits and pieces of what it is about, but my interest was greatly stimulated by Dr. Whited in basic genetics 311 last spring. The discussion that we had regarding the project left me with several ideas and questions about not only the process and ethics involved, but the future of the study of genetics as a whole.