Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Science News

US Senate Backs Genetic Privacy 262

Posted by simoniker from the share-in-my-superior-structure dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to an article at NYTimes.com (free registration required), the US Senate has unanimously voted for the first Genetic Privacy Bill. Basically, this would make it illegal for employers and insurers to deny employment or benefits based on genetic analysis of your DNA. While it still needs to be passed by the House, it seems that we're not heading towards a Gattaca-esque society, after all. Hooray for us genetically inferior invalids!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Senate Backs Genetic Privacy More

US Senate Backs Genetic Privacy

Comments Filter:
  • keep outta my jeans..

    err.. genes..

    you get the point..

    • Snippit:

      Employers would be permitted to collect genetic information just to determine workplace exposures and could not use the information in hiring.

      So why would employers need this information in the first place? I can't see any reason McDonalds would use this, or hell... even the regular "office" setting. But there may be a possibility of someone working in a dangerous setting such as being exposed to chemicals or toxins, nulcear radation etc.

      Pardon my ignorance on the issues regarding radiation

      • If you have had a blood test, your DNA is in the system..
        CODIS I think it is called, used in healthcare and for crime-fighting peeps like CSI etc..

        As an ex military person I know I am in there, they did mandatory DNA sampling. I cooked mine in the microwave for a while before handing it in though.. :)

        • If you had the chance to cook your DNA before handing it into a database then no-one has anything to worry about . With a chain of evidence like that who could ever prove whose dna is whose.

          Or you'll look like an alien and get picked up and dissected first time someone looks at your sample.

          • hahahahaha

            yea, that actually is scary that I might get picked up and dissected at some point..

            either that or when we go the ultimate draconian route (i.e. hitler'esque) and they decide to remove the lower portion of the genetic bellcurve.

      • "So why would employers need this information in the first place?"

        I'm not into Conspiracy Theories, but in this case it's clear. An employer wants to estimate the chances that someone they're going to hire, is going to be sick. If you're a construction company and you hire someone to do the heavy work, you'd like to know upfront if that person will be able to do it. Would be sad to find out a few days later that he's got a weak back and can't lift more than a sixpack longnecks (no pun intended).

        So far,

    • I picked up a second job a few weeks ago waiting tables at a restaurant. within a week they wanted my fingerprints so that logging into the system is a bit faster. I explained that i wouldnt give my fingerprints unless they provide me with a privacy policy detailing exactly what will be done with my prints, who will have access to them, and what will be done if the information is leaked. this seems to have slowed them down a bit as it's been 2 weeks since they've mentioned it to me... anyone know what t

  • In Canada (Score:2, Informative)

    by WormholeFiend ( 674934 )
    wouldnt that type of discrimination be automatically covered by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
    • Established that equality includes such things as sexual orientation, so I would be surprised if the same protection did not extend to genetic disposition.

      Now, many disagree with the Vriend Decision, but the Supreme Court simply interpreted s.15 (section 15, equality rights) in the broadest sense. It is hard to say that we are all equal when one can discriminate because of sexual orientation, that is, how can you deny housing or employment to homosexuals based solely on that criteria when the same behaviou
  • In other words, this is a giant LOSS for Open Source initiatives. Just when we were getting businesses and employers to look at open source software and operating systems, etolling the benefits of looking at the source code, it's now illegal for them to look at the source code for their employees.

    I mean, if -I- owned my own business, i'd want to be DAMN SURE that my new hires didn't have any infringing IP in their genes.

    • Too late (Score:3, Funny)

      by Raul654 ( 453029 )
      Everyone I know is a derivative of at least two previously existing ones. So much for non-infringing source code.
      • OKAY GRACIOUS GOD DARL!!

        (kekekekeke)

        How about third party peripherals such as plastic hips, replacement knees, firewire hearing aides or vision correction patches?

        Hell... some people even have had a quadruple-recompile on their heart.
  • In the movie Gattica, they explictely said it was illegal to descriminate, but that people did it anyway. They did it because once genetic testing because ubiqutious, it will be very easy to discretely get a sample and have it tested.
    • I wonder how much the movie affected the decision. Gattaca was above all a cautionary tale... something with a long history in science fiction. And whether it directly influenced the Senate, I'm sure it at least brought the issue into the minds of the people.

      I often point to Gattaca as an example of what I consider a good science fiction movie. Unfortunately, for every Gattaca that makes it to the big screen, we've got to endure a dozen Event Horizons and Supernovas.
    • ...when you start engineering people's genes themselves. For instance: let's say you're hiring, but not supposed to discriminate against someone because they have or have not been genetically engineered. That leaves you judging on performance alone, right? But happens when someone who is genetically engineered to be perfect for the job you're hiring for comes along? Won't they automatically be better for the job anyway?

      What is non-discrimination in this case?
      • There isn't a single gene for intelligence, just like there is no single gene for your arm or your leg.

        Gen-engineering for intelligence is a long, long, long way off. The best we can do now, or will be able to do anytime in the near future, is to find and (possibly) get rid of single gene defects.
        • Gen-engineering for intelligence is a long, long, long way off.

          In Gattaca all they did was screening not engineering. They only could readout the code, and then to a certian extent understand the code. It was expressed in terms of risk of having heart attack, chances of being smart, etc. So maybe we run into problems long before we can do genetic manipulations, such as engineering people who do not masturbate.
      • > But happens when someone who is genetically engineered to be perfect for the job
        > you're hiring for comes along? Won't they automatically be better for the job
        > anyway?

        Yes, and will probably get it.
        Just like when the script for a movie calls for a short stocky white man. Not hiring a black person is not discriminating in that case.

    • In the movie Gattica

      It's important to point this out, because if you can't spell GATTACA you missed an entirely important aspect of the movie.

      The chemicals used for information are: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C) and guanine (G). Hence the name GATTACA is a sequence of DNA. -Sometimes things are subtle, PAY ATTENTION!

  • Now you tell me... I'm the guy they used to map the genome, you insensitive clod!
  • You linked to NYT without the usual disclaimer, you insensitive clod! Now I'm all traumatized!
  • The big advantage here is that folks who *may* have some sort of genetic disease are going be able to get tested for it without fear. Previously, because it was a legal gray area, they wouldn't be able to know for sure.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • True. Although I'm not sure if anybody has yet established an information broker about your medical information. The big thing stopping this is patient privacy. Your records are very hard to dig up normally because of a series of laws including HIPPA, even for a private investigator.
    • That advantage is not going to be sustainable: if you know you have a much higher chance of dying in the next 5 years than other people of your age and gender, you could reasonably decide that you will take out life insurance. If you have a good chance of living for 20 years longer than is typical, you would buy a pension annuity.

      If the insurance comapny cannot ask you "Do you know anything relevant that significantly affects your life expectancy" then it will go bankrupt fairly quickly.

      Similar thin

      • Not necessarily.

        Cancer sucks far less if you catch it early. If you knew you were suceptable to a particular cancer, you would be far more proactive about getting tested for it. I think in quite a few cases, knowing something like a suceptability to cancer, anyurisms, etc. would end up being a net gain because you'd, in theory, be better able to prevent it, thus decreasing your total pay-out from insurance.

        And remember, genes are generally not "known" future, they are a possibility. It's not like knowi
  • Does that mean it's now illegal to charge women more for car insurance just because they're women? Courts have ruled in the past that insurance rates based off of statistical trends are good. What happens now if those trends are genetically based?
  • In GATTACA, they had laws against genetically profiling.. If you didn't agree to a genetic test, they'd just lift your genetic material off the door knob you used to enter the office, or the glass you drank out of..

    Seems like a fairly plausable scenario to me.

    'Well, we didn't hire him because his additude didn't seem right for our team... And we wish him the best of luck with his imminent bout with cancer.'

    -n

    • 'Well, we didn't hire him because his additude didn't seem right for our team... And we wish him the best of luck with his imminent bout with cancer.'
      You kiddin'? If anything, in the tech economy this would be a bonus. I mean, who wants to have to keep 'em around when they're in their fifties, starting to carp about crap like better hours, healthcare and pensions?
      • Last time I checked, companies lay people off for any reason they want.. As well, while it may not be cancer, it could be ADHD, depression, alcoholism, predisposition to snapping and shooting co-workers.. Also the effect that a person will have on the company insurance. Gotta keep those premiums down. While people do just up and die randomly, it's the ones with prolonged illnesses or negative conditions that will get singled out. -n

  • Don't be naive. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FreeLinux ( 555387 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @05:25PM (#7224366)
    This bill would require that you prove that the insurance company denied you coverage because of your DNA rather than some other reason of their choosing. It doesn't deny them the ability to see or maintain records of your DNA which is what we really need.

    With this bill it would be no problem for an insurance company to deny you coverage based on your DNA but, tell you it is due to them having reached their quota for your age/gender/geographic region/past claims.

    The law needs to say that they cannot see your genome and they definitely cannot record it. There is no reason for anyone but your doctor and his lab to have it.
    • Science has outpaced itself in this case. Until there are genetic treatments to "cure" ailments there is no need for ANYONE to have your genetic information except, if you desire it, you.

      Prohibiting employers from discriminating on the basis of genetics means nothing, because they can always lie. and prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage means ABSOLUTELY nothing, because they can just do exactly like they already do with cancer patients and make the coverage so freaking expensive they'd nee

  • So now my employer will outsource their DNA testing and discriminating practices to some island in international waters?
  • I was worried. My Phenotype gives me a huge advantage, I'd hate for my Genotype to have something to hurt me. Hooray for discrimination only by things we can easily observe!
  • "Hooray for us genetically inferior invalids!"

    What a terrible comment, once it comes down to the nitty gritty, it is very difficult to judge "superior" and "inferior" genes. In our short-sightedness we could rule out the gene that cures AIDS, or heart disease; because we as humans aren't habitually long term thinkers.

    Playing with genes is dangerous, it is our very genetic diversity that has made mankind a powerful species. Hopefully this bill will help it stay diverse
    • Playing with genes is dangerous, it is our very genetic diversity that has made mankind a powerful species. Hopefully this bill will help it stay diverse

      You mean there will finally be a law that will require women to sleep with me? Oh I love the government!
  • Privacy: 1

    Ashcroft: 58

  • The Reuters article a few days ago mentioned that the bill "has languished in the House for years," largely due to the opposition of the insurance industry, who claims that the bill is unnecessary because existing laws already provide enough protection.

    (Of course it flew through the Senate. Why would they care? Do you think the Senators, their families, and their friends^Wfinancial donors, will ever have a problem affording medical teatment?)

    It'd be nice if the House pulled their 430-odd heads out of

  • Illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by silvaran ( 214334 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @05:27PM (#7224387)
    Basically, this would make it illegal for employers and insurers to deny employment or benefits based on genetic analysis of your DNA.

    So, it was illegal in Gattaca too. Hawke narrated something along the lines of "A perfectly innocent drug test could quickly turn into a peek at your genetic code."

    Beware the loopholes.

    • "A perfectly innocent drug test could quickly turn into a peek at your genetic code."

      IMHO there is no such thing as an 'innocent' drug test, and I'd refuse to work for any company that insisted on one. Not because I'm worried that I'd fail, but because the contents of a person's urine/hair/blood are utterly irrevelant for 99% of jobs.

      Luckily, in the UK at least, the companies that you'd actually want to work for don't have testing. So any company that does insist might as well stick a poster outside of t

  • I, for one, thank our genetically inferior overlords for this.
  • Insurance companies asking medical questions violates no-one's privacy. One chooses to or not to have health insurance. Individuals more likely to get various diseases and ailments should pay higher premiums. That's what makes insurance possible and efficient. It's no more reasonable to say that someone who's 80% likely to get alzheimer's based on his or her genome should pay the same premium as someone who isn't, than it is to say that somone who smokes should pay the same premium as someone who doesn't. I
    • actually insurance is sort of like a private socialization of society.
      i.e. think.. insurance is a *business* that makes a LOT of money.. The idea that sick people should not be allowed to get insurance, or that insurance is not allowed for someone with a genetic defect (proven through DNA testing) is absurd.
      Otherwise, you will have insurance companies that simple select the people they know will not ever get sick and reject all the rest. This makes them money, profit being the bottom line.
      Now, on some level
      • Now, on some levels this could be great (i.e. weeding out inferior gene stock etc..) however we would be drastically reducing our labor market.. So, who is going to empty your trashcan and "biggie-size" that for you?

        Eh? This insinuation that people on the lower end of the labor market tend to be more prone to genetic issues is... well... silly. Anyhow, any event which resulted in a substantial population decrease (and I'm *not* accepting that this is in fact the case) wouldn't necessarily result in a misb
        • perhaps you are right, and my example was really meant as an just that, and example (i.e. very poor people generally don't have insurance anyway)..

          however, play it out, think of it in realistic and very dry and draconian terms (as if you were an insurance company):
          Genetically superior people will generally be able to work more and better than people who often call in sick. Therefore these people are more likely to get raises and or higher positions/pay. This means these people have more money.

          If you don't
    • Who gives a damn about economics? So that the rich genetically "inferior" individuals will be able to afford health insurance and the poor won't? Kinda like what we have now (particularly here in the U.S.)? The problem with free market solutions is that in the end they boil down your worthiness and value to on thing: the size of your bank account. I'm sorry, but I refuse to agree the Bill Gates and his ilk are really more valuable to society than the millions of people who actually do the work that mak
    • "Insurance", by definition, covers unpredictable risks. As medical science provides more and more means to predict an individual's medical future, the possible space for issuing insurance for that person's health shrinks. Maybe one day the "health insurance" industry is going to shrink itself out of business.

      The problem is that for a significant portion of the population, individual insurance is useless because it is easy to determine that they are or are likely unhealthy enough so that unaffordable premi

    • Let's say I'm taking out a term life-insurance policy for the next 10 years. If I'm twice as likely to die in that next 10 years than another person, it makes sense that I pay twice the premium.

      You're on the right track here, sort of. Insurance is supposed to be about spreading risk.

      I don't like your example, so I'll make up my own: We all know that anyone's house could burn down, so we'll all chip into a fund to replace them when they do. That's insurance, and it makes sense. It doesn't change the

    • Individuals who think like this obviously have a complete lack of understanding of how insurance works, as well as a complete lack of understanding of economics and praxeology. All that these laws are going to do is force people who are perfectly healthy and likely to be so all their lives to pay higher premiums, to cover for freeloaders much more susceptible to various risks.

      Sorry, but private socialization of risk is the point of insurance. Insurance is pointless if only the people who don't need it ar

      • thank you for this eloquent reply to that moronic post.

        "private socialization" is the real point here..

        I am wondering now if that post was merely a flamebait because any person who thinks that is either horrible uneducated or has no concept of how the capitalist society works when mingled with private socialization for distributed risk management. :)
      • Send them to die in the streets like Reagan emptying the asylums?

        Do you really think the president has any power of asylums? You must wish we lived in a dictatorship...but you got it wrong. The supreme court made impossible to commit anyone into an asylum unless it could be proved they were an imminent threat to society or themselves.

        I am not going to bother digging up a link, but do you really think Reagan wanted to see all these crackheads and drunks on the streets? My god... I see the filth on the s
    • You are right about the stupidity, but I am thinking about you. You are correct, from a free-market standpoint, but reality needs to come into play once and awhile. According to your free-market view of the world those who need insurance probably won't get any and those that don't need insurance will get insurance. You are also right that we are not granted a right to insurance, but maybe we should be.

      You are an obvious free-market zealot who can see know reason that inferior people, those who are sick o
      • The free market is the most logical solution to all problems from a utilitarian standpoint, not that that's a convincing argument. The real argument is that any tampering with the free market constitute's a violation of property rights; in the case of socialized medicine, it means the systematic theft (thus enslavement) of the healthy to help pay for the medical costs of the unhealthy. No-one has the right to receive the services of another person without compensating them what they'd otherwise accept on a
    • You said "insurance" and "efficient" in the same sentence, which was obviously caused by an error in your logic :)

      Seriously, insurance is anything but efficient. Indeed, it is inefficient by definition. Let me explain...

      Insurance companies are in business to make money. They make money by accepting payments from customers, all the while doing their best to never do anything for said customers. Insurance companies don't bank on having to provide a service for you, it is just the opposite. That is wh

  • Well, speak for yourself, I don't feel concerned by that remark, and neither does my therapist. So there ...
  • it seems that we're not heading towards a Gattaca-esque society, after all.

    don't worry, we still have plenty of chances!

  • Isn't part of the back story of Gattica that it was illegal to use DNA, but everyone did it anyway.
    • Isn't part of the back story of Gattica that it was illegal to use DNA, but everyone did it anyway.

      Yes, that was specifically mentioned.

      I had never seen Gattaca before, nor even knew what the story was about... until today, after reading this Slashdot story, I felt compelled to stop by Best Buy (shame on me) on my way home from work and bought a copy on DVD for $15 (supporting the MPAA, double shame on me) and just now finished watching it a few minutes ago.

      All I can say is WOW!

      What a great story.

      I t

  • I dont get the posting...here's where the issue gets murky for me...

    Basically, this would make it illegal for employers and insurers to deny employment or benefits based on genetic analysis of your DNA.

    Does this sentence mean that they (employers & insurers) can look but not act?...Or does it mean that they have no legal right to the information and it is legally equiv. to stolen goods(kinda like illegal mp3's)?

    I still don't trust the bastards

  • In _Gattaca_, Ethan Hawke's character specifically mentioned that it was explicitly illegal to discriminate against those with a lesser genetic code. However, if a potential employer asked for a urine sample for a routine drug test, that wouldn't stop them from testing your DNA. The US still might be heading towards a Gattaca society; indeed, the first legal component is now in place.
  • "illegal for employers and insurers to deny employment or benefits based on genetic analysis of your DNA"

    That's a good first step, but it's not privacy. If they don't have access to my genetic information, I don't have to worry about discrimination based on it. You don't need to state genetics as a reason, there are always other excuses to apply. Fortunately with this much support, they should be willing to pass a bill that offers real privacy. Of course it may be there already I didn't RTFA :-)

  • It is wasteful to throw away useful information. And if you don't think the information is useful, then why pass a law saying people can't use it?

    This law is about denial of reality. The apparent motive behind it: fear of reality. The true motive behind it: somebody wants something for nothing, in defiance of reality.

  • contracts, people, contracts (Score:3, Informative)

    by dh003i ( 203189 ) <dh003i@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @05:59PM (#7224673) Homepage Journal
    Regarding companies deciding to "take a peek at your DNA" from a bloodtest, that would or would not be permitted based on the contract between you and the doctor for the taking and testing of your blood. If the contract said that they were taking your blood to test it for HIV and hepatitis, then that's all they can test it for; anything else is a breech of contract on their part, and punishable as such. Contract law forms a perfectly reasonable basis for privacy (of course, let's not forget that the biggest invader of our privacy is the government, which presumes to be the sainted protector of that very right which it violates most aggregiously).
    • My mind being on gattaca, the first 2 times i read your subject i thought it was "contacts, people, contacts".
    • Contract law forms a perfectly reasonable basis for privacy

      Only problem is modern legal theory holds that there's nothing morally wrong with breaking a contract, as long as you're willing to compensate the other side for the breach. Contract law really isn't strong enough to protect our privacy, that's why laws like this are necessary.
      • the solution, then, is to strengthen contract law, not to create backwards laws like this. Violation of contract should be viewed as exaclty what it is -- the violation of property rights. As such, it should be punishable similar to if you aggressed against another's private property.
  • Of course, it's illegal to discriminate. 'Genoism' it's called. But no one takes the law seriously.

    If you refused to discolse, they can always take a sample from a door handle, or a handshake, even the saliva on your application form. If in doubt, a legal drug test can just as easily become an illegal peek at your future in the company.

  • It's amazing how unfair genetics really are. Some people have better genes in certain things than others and really some people are inferior to others in just about every way. (genetically, not socially). It's good to see that the government understands this, that jobs, insurance, etc are social issues and a society just cannot exist if people are denied things based on something they have no control over. Nice to see we are not going to turn into the haves VS the have-nots in terms of genes. (there is e
  • I can finally include my cat on my kaiser?
  • Actually in the movie Gattaca there are similar laws, it's just that the corporations don't pay attention to them(and get away with it). If you don't think that will happen in reality as well.. I think you're wrong.
  • A family member has Huntingtons and will most obviously benefit from this. I object to it. This is not something that should be foisted on the public.

    The ethics of this situation are the usual ones I subscribe to: If you are going to benefit from public policy that is unfair to others you have an obligation to oppose such public policy and do so with an amount of resources comparable to the benefits you receive.

  • Except in California. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by C10H14N2 ( 640033 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @07:41PM (#7225353)
    As handily pointed out in Gattaca, where this law was in place, there are other ways around it. Just like in California where I cannot fire you because you are a single mother black lesbian jew with a physical handicap, but I CAN fire you because you are one of the above who happens to wear really ugly shoes that I can only rid myself of by firing you.

    Admittedly, there may be one or two rare cases where someone writes on the pink slip: "you, single mother black lesbian jew with a predisposition for diabetes, are fired." Since most people exclude the portion between the commas, resorting to the more de riguer "you're just fired" these laws are pointless. Proving that you were fired for a specific reason when from all appearances you were fired for no reason at all is for all reasonable purposes impossible.

    "Smashing, yay capitalism." -- Austin Powers
  • I thought that this article by Michael Levin from Mises.org was relevant. It's quoted in its entirity.

    The Senator has a painful announcement to make. His daughter is mentally ill. This gives him special insight into a social injustice: insurance companies are less willing to cover mental illness than other forms. They place annual and lifetime limits on the number of permitted psychiatric sessions, for example. Moved by his pleas, the entire Senate agrees to stamp out bias against mental illness with a n

    • Your argument is excellent. I wanted to write something similar, but since you've already written, I'll just add a couple of points:

      I once heard a representative of an insurance company say that they had abolutely no problem with not learning the results of genetic testing, as long as the customer also didn't have that information. The reason is obvious and follows from your arguments: If the customer knows that he's likely to get sick, he's going to take out more insurance, or insurance specifically f

  • I want to know which House Resolution # corresponds to the Genetic Privacy bill circulating in Congress :)
  • Gattaca's whole point is that somehow genetics can make you more or less qualified for a position and that's Wrong(tm).

    But wait. Genetics determine our skills and our tolerance for a job situation. Good luck joining NASA and getting a ride in a shuttle if you have a heart condition. Is that unfair discrimation? No. It's recognizing a "flaw" in your genetics that could kill you and ruin a mission. If you could genetically fix that "flaw" you should be qualified if nothing else was preventing it.

    I rem
  • If you remember correctly, in Gattaca such a law exists, which forbids employers to use DNA tests to select their candidates. But, of course, they aren't applied: in today's world, do you object when a recruiter goes beyond its duty and asks you about your private life, when you absolutely need the job and know several others need the sale job ?

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close