Genetic Testing And The Human Genome Project

   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

Although genetic testing can benefit society in numerous ways, such as the diagnosis of vulnerabilities to inherited diseases and ancestry verification, it also has the precarious capability to become a tool in selecting a more favorable genetic makeup of an individuals and ultimately cloning humans. Genetic testing will depreciate our quality of life and may result in discrimination, invasion of privacy, and harmful gene therapy. In 1993 a pamphlet by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute was released heralding Gene Therapy. Although gene testing had been around and used for various procedures and breakthroughs, gene therapy had the potential to change the face of research, as we knew it. Medical scientists had finally found a

I support the guidelines outlined by Kitcher for the use of genetic information because of their responsible and ethical nature. I believe that future generations will benefit as a direct consequence of these guidelines. I shall begin by defining eugenics as the study of human genetics to improve inherited characteristics of the human race by the means of controlled selective breeding.

The benefits of genetic science for society is for employers who want to know if their employers are in excellent working condition and if the worker will cause them more money when obtaining health insurance. If an employer hires someone that that is healthy then the cost of health insurance does not rise and the employee will not have to downgrade their health insurance plan so that they can accommodate the employee that is not healthy. The limitations of genetic science for society are the possibility of genetic testing causing safety issues at work, the development of a genetic low class, the breach of privilege and confidentiality, and the utilization of genetic bias to excuse different methods of discrimination (Krumm, 2002).

A lot of controversial issues present themselves in psychology. Two topics that I will be discussing in this essay are the controversy over genetic testing and what things would be like without genetic testing. I will be describing what genetic testing is, and how it can affect an individual’s family life. I will be discussing the benefits of genetic counseling, as well as the positives without genetic counseling, and how this issue is debated in a psychological view.

Genetic discrimination is judgement based on one’s genetic characteristics or chromosomes. In 2008, the “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act” (GINA) was passed, this act would prohibit discrimination based on genetics; moreover, GINA would prevent employers and health insurance providers from increasing health insurance rates based on one’s genetic disposition, which I will discuss further. In this paper, I will discuss the key purpose of GINA, summarize the five congressional findings that impelled the formation of GINA.

There is much controversy around the issue of genetic testing. These controversial issues range from being "unnatural" or against god 's will. There are several different ways to tests genetics but they all have one thing in common: they test for changes or mutations in chromosomes, genes, and proteins. These tests can provide answers for many families who want to know whether their children have become inflicted with a condition due to their family 's genetics, the health of the mother during the gestational period, or by some strange twist of the unknown. Despite all of the controversy, Genetic Testing is acceptable for determining whether an unborn child is at risk of developing a debilitating and/or deadly condition, relieving the worry of parents, and preemptively treating any condition that the child may have.

Another article that I have recently acquired has more to do with the ethical standpoint of genetic tailoring, than the scientific. In recent years, a rather large sum of attention has been placed on whether or not the possibility of genetic testing will harm our communities (Gooding).

In the movie Gattaca, the government, corporations, and society itself can easily see the genetic makeup of citizens and can view them to see if they are “valid” or “invalid”. This happens on many occasions, such as inspectors checking for validation at every corner, and females taking a swab from their lip to view their date’s genetic makeup. In Gattaca’s society, genes are the factor that can either open the door to succeeding or prevent people from succeeding. Soon in our world, we too will have the technology and the capability to easily view the genetic makeup of individuals. Life insurance companies, employers, and even the government will be able to view this data.

Genetic genealogy can set the stage for discrimination and inequality for those seeking minority status, for benefits and government handouts, or alternately, it can hold individuals back because of racism or bigotry; and lead to ‘genetically repackaged discrimination’. There is an uneven playing field, with some entities recognizing genetic testing results, yet others are rejecting it. While seeking personal identity is a worthwhile endeavor, another perspective brings a host of psychological, social, legal, political, and ethical worries. It is possible to uncover undesirable, or unexpected genetic ancestral ties that could lead to diverse identity issues, and other emotional, or financial consequences. Increasingly, genetic testing, or DNA, is used as a genealogical resource; it has potential to be used as a tool by narrowing down possibilities, but it can, also, be scientifically inaccurate. There are limitations in the science, both with interpretation of tests results, and with the databases. Avoiding inaccuracies requires sampling strategies and creating human population margins from genetic data. In addition, interpretation of ancestry tracing needs to be made less complicated for the consumer. While uncertainties are inherent, geneticists are optimistic about the future of genealogy using DNA.

Predictive genetic testing has the potential to be the basis of discrimination, as it could give employers a reason not to hire and insurers a reason not to insure (Wilde et al., 2013, p. 271). Another major concern is that it could cause a loss of privacy of personal genetic data if employers and/or insurers were given the results of the genetic testing (Wilde et al., 2013, p. 271).

genetic testing, everything has changed. She notes that clinicians now have the ability to diagnose, treat, and monitor a patient’s illnesses or disease progression in an entirely different manner. This is a far cry from the old medical model of responding to a disease (or defect) only after it appears, and then prescribing the recommended medication or intervention. These genetic medical advances sound miraculous and promising, but the ability to test, screen and provide early intervention does not come without many major ethical dilemmas.

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

Thank you for responding to my writing. Your disagreement on my paper regarding genetic testing at work place is valid, but I got a question for you though. What happens in situations whereby the process of genetic testing is done for the safety and well-being of those who will be working in that institution? I am asking this because I consider being recruited as a collegiate athlete is form of employment and genetic testing is mandatory nowadays. why? because recently, there was a law suit filed against Rice University by a family of Dayle Lloyd and the main reason way because Llyod died during a football practice in 2006 and was later found to have had the sickle cell gene that would been avoided had genetic testing been done during the process

Genetic testing is the crystal ball of health predictions. Geneticist across the U.S have been quite successful of analyzing and assessing patients (human genome) that are the most reliable and beneficial resources for patients and physicians to review patients health in the near future. However, insurance are not likely to pay for additional testing, but pay for the basic panel of testing, which include BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 (breast cancer gene of its protein product). Physicians are known to test for additional gene panel to understand and retrieve information about the patient family and history of tumor and cancer. According to Holbrook (2013), “the use of genetic testing has spread from crime scenes and footballs and evolved from convicting and exonerating. It now allows a person to equip themselves with vital information about their bodies. They can find out whether they are more predisposed to certain health risk” (p.1). As genetic testing for disease has become more popular, many laws have aimed to prevent discrimination based off patients results of such tests that are being conducted in many geneticist and physicians clinic. Nevertheless, many individuals feel that, as this type of testing becomes more popular, regulators will be forced to do something to prevent discrimination in the disability, long-term care and life insurance sectors.