Reconsidering genetic antidiscrimination legislation

Genomic privacy, identity and dignity

Significant advancements towards a future of big data genomic medicine, associated with large-scale public dataset repositories, intensify dilemmas of genomic privacy. To resolve dilemmas adequately, we need to understand the relative force of the competing considerations that make them up. Attitudes towards genomic privacy are complex and not well understood; understanding is further complicated by the vague claim of 'genetic exceptionalism'. In this paper, we distinguish between consequentialist and non-consequentialist privacy interests: while the former are concerned with harms secondary to exposure, the latter represent the interest in a private sphere for its own sake, as an essential component of human dignity. Empirical studies of attitudes towards genomic privacy have almost never targeted specifically this important dignitary component of the privacy interest. In this paper we first articulate the question of a non-consequentialist genomic privacy interest, and then present results of an empirical study that probed people's attitudes towards that interest. This was done via comparison to other non-consequentialist privacy interests, which are more tangible and can be more easily assessed. Our results indicate that the non-consequentialist genomic privacy interest is rather weak. This insight can assist in adjudicating dilemmas involving genomic privacy.

Genetic information in the age of genohype

We will analyse the representations and conceptualisation of genetics and genetic information in bioethical discourse. Genetics and genetic information is widely believed to be revolutionizing medicine and is sometimes misconceived as having a high predictive value compared to traditional diagnostics. We will attempt to present the inherent limitations of genetic information within its health care context. We will also argue against the exceptional treatment of genetic information that seems to govern bioethical reflection and regulatory approaches. And finally, we will make the claim that geneticization should be seen as a more serious threat to our privacy, autonomy and freedom, than genetic discrimination.

Investigating genetic discrimination in Australia: opportunities and challenges in the early stages

Genetic discrimination, defined as the differential treatment of individuals or their relatives on the basis of actual or presumed genetic differences, is an emerging issue of interest in academic, clinical, social and legal contexts. While its potential significance has been discussed widely, verified empirical data are scarce. Genetic discrimination is a complex phenomenon to describe and investigate, as evidenced by the recent Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry in Australia. The authors research project, which commenced in 2002, aims to document the multiple perspectives and experiences regarding genetic discrimination in Australia and inform future policy development and law reform. Data are being collected from consumers, employers, insurers and the legal system. Attempted verification of alleged accounts of genetic discrimination will be a novel feature of the research. This paper overviews the early stages of the research, including conceptual challenges and their methodological implications.

On the prevalence of population groups in the human-genetics research literature

BACKGROUND

Population-specific human-genetics research has become commonplace but remains controversial, as its results can affect public and personal perceptions of the ethnic, national, and racial groups studied. Choice of populations for study has generally seemed a function of scientific, logistical, or economic factors.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Has the identity of populations studied in the human-genetics research literature varied systematically, and, if it has, in what ways?

METHODS

I searched the PubMed database for population-genetics reports, calculating for each a population score, a genetics score, and a mutation score.

RESULTS

Some populations had been studied far more intensively than others. Many of the most frequently studied groups were ethnically defined and politically marginal in their home countries; some of these groups were involved in self-determination struggles. In the mutation-research literature, state-defined Muslim and Mediterranean populations prevailed.

CONCLUSION

Study-population selection may in some cases be explained by, or may complicate, political predicament.

Disclosure, confidentiality, and families: experiences and attitudes of those with genetic versus nongenetic medical conditions

Despite policy attention to medical privacy and patient confidentiality, little empirical work exists documenting and comparing experiences of persons with genetic versus nongenetic medical conditions concerning persons' disclosure to others as well as their views about appropriate confidentiality to and within families. The goal of this cross-sectional interview study with nearly 600 participants was to document and compare the experiences, attitudes, and beliefs of persons with strictly genetic conditions to those of persons with or at risk for other serious medical conditions in terms of the degree to which they have disclosed to others that they have the condition and their views about how others ought to maintain the confidentiality of that information. While almost all participants reported that family members knew about their condition, results suggest participants want to control that disclosure themselves and do not want doctors to disclose information to family members without their knowledge. Similarly, participants do not think family members should be able to get information about them without their knowledge but feel overwhelmingly that it is a person's responsibility to disclose information about hereditary conditions to other family members. Ambivalence about confidentiality was evident: while most participants did not mind doctors sharing information with other doctors when it was for their benefit, the majority also felt that doctors should be punished for releasing information without their permission. The views and experiences reported here generally did not differ by whether participants had genetic versus nongenetic conditions, suggesting that the extensive policy focus on genetic information may be unwarranted.

Genetic testing and its implications: human genetics researchers grapple with ethical issues

To better understand ethical issues involved in the field of human genetics and promote debate within the scientific community, the author surveyed scientists who engage in human genetics research about the pros, cons, and ethical implications of genetic testing. This study contributes systematic data on attitudes of scientific experts. The survey finds respondents are highly supportive of voluntary testing and the right to know one's genetic heritage. The majority consider in utero testing and consequent pregnancy termination acceptable for cases involving likelihood of serious disease but disapprove for genetic reasons they consider arbitrary, leaving a gray area of distinguishing between treatment of disorders and enhancement still to be resolved. While safeguarding patient confidentiality versus protecting at-risk third parties (kin, reproductive partners) presents a dilemma, preserving privacy from misuse by institutional third parties (employers, insurers) garners strong consensus for legislation against discrimination. Finally, a call is made for greater genetic literacy.

Policy Before Practice

The value of genetics in medicine has been steadily developing with our increasing knowledge of the human genome. Genetic testing to determine disease risk or potential drug effects is set to become more commonplace. With this comes increasing concern about access to genetic information, and the potential for discriminatory usage of such information. At present, the scope and predictability of genetic testing and the conclusions that may be drawn fairly from genetic information are limited. Nonetheless, public concerns about discrimination based on the possession of a genetic trait or condition are well documented. The prospect that such information might be used in decisions regarding employment or insurability has caused anxiety and prompted legislation largely dedicated to the use of information about one's genotype rather than medical information in general. These laws emphasize genetic information as distinct from other medical information and attempt to prioritize interests in genetic information. As the distinction between genetic and medical information becomes untenable, those who would regulate the use of genotypic information will find this approach to policy problematic.In considering the limits of legislation as an effective tool of regulating genetic discrimination, several conclusions can be drawn: firstly, despite the promise of genomic medicine, current knowledge is insufficient to justify the use or application of certain genetic information in nonmedical contexts; secondly, public resistance to genomic medicine that is based on fear of genetic discrimination poses a danger that justifies a policy response; and thirdly, such a response may be purely symbolic and not entirely effective, provided that the policy establishes a consensus regarding the applicability of genetic information in nonmedical contexts.

What is a genetic test, and why does it matter?

How the term 'genetic test' is defined, matters for social policy. The past few years have witnessed many efforts to enact legal barriers specifically against genetic discrimination. To the extent that information derived from genetic tests receives special protection, both enthusiasts for genetic medicine and those who stress its perils have an incentive to adopt a broad interpretation of genetic testing. However, the consequences have not always been those anticipated.