Do you know your DNA rights?

A wise word of caution that applies to Kansas as it joins the national rush toward DNA databanking: Harlan Levy, a former assistant district attorney in New York City, wrote in The New York Times that once states have taken DNA from people convicted and even just arrested in felony cases (as per a new Kansas bill now headed to the governor’s desk), collecting DNA from the entire population at birth may be next. That would help catch bad guys and prevent crime, he acknowledged. But lab techs make mistakes, people can be framed, and DNA’s presence at a crime scene can be innocent. And “there’s nothing cutting edge about technology that is likely to be outdated before it becomes useful, or vast databases maintained by government bureaucrats who will require you to explain the presence of your alleged DNA at a crime scene at peril of prison. Instead, it sounds like some misguided, dismal imagining of our future.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman

5 Comments

  1. Gittin' madder by the minute
    Posted March 22, 2006 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    Gil Grissom aside, here is a chance to really just say no.Only if I’m charged with something.

  2. J M Walker
    Posted March 22, 2006 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    Mistakes aside, if your DNA shows a predisposition towards cancer, or any number of inherited diseases, it could prevent you from qualifying for health, or life, insurance. Gotta remember: Big business always wins. And if a DNA data base is started from birth, you know damn well the info WILL get out.

  3. Brandon
    Posted March 22, 2006 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    Supreme Court May Decide Who Owns Your Genetic Code

    A case being argued in the Supreme Court may decide basic questions about what can be patented, particularly intellectual property rights and biotechnology. The case itself deals with a patent granted in 1990 to scientists at the University of Colorado and Columbia in New York. They discovered that high levels of an amino acid, homocysteine, in the blood or urine tended to be associated with a deficiency of B vitamins.

    The patent not only granted ownership of a test invented for vitamin B deficiency to Metabolite Laboratories, which owns the patent, but for the thought about the relationship between two chemicals in the human body. Another company, LabCorp, invented a different testing method, which was also based on thinking about the correlation between the two chemicals. Metabolite sued LabCorp when the latter did not pay royalties.

    You may be wondering why you should care. Potentially the court’s decision could impact thousands of other patents, including the 20% of the human genome that is patented, as well as many other areas of patent law that revolve around discoveries of what are not man made inventions, but instead reveal what already exists in nature. Imagine if Watson and Crick had patented the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. All subsequent genetic research would have infringed on that patent.

    But even more specific genetic patenting is a huge problem. For example, a patent has already been granted for the genetic sequence governing Alzheimer’s disease. Anyone now wanting to research that disease must have the money to first pay the royalties. In affect, these patents allow huge areas of potential life saving research to be cordoned off by “biopiracy”.

    A biotech company, Myriad Genetics, has secured exclusive licenses based on patents for the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes, mutations in which are linked to breast and ovarian cancer. It sent letters ordering laboratories to stop screening women for the mutations.

    Here’s a quote that capsulizes the issue of these extraordinary attempts to chill research for monetary gain:

    “Any company that wants to be in the business of using genes, proteins, or antibodies as drugs has a very high probability of running afoul of our patents. From a commercial point of view, they are severely constrained – and far more than they realize.” Dr William A. Haseltine, Chairman and CEO, Human Genome Sciences.

    It is as if Joseph Priestley had patented his discovery of oxygen, and threatened patent suits against those who breath. How broadly the court chooses to address the issue of patenting naturally occurring processes and structures is an important one. Not just for scientists, but for everyone in the future who might benefit from medical research efforts to find new cures and treatments for disease.

    http://theflyoverzone.blogspot.com/2006/03/supreme-court-may-decide-who-owns-your.html

  4. Rage
    Posted March 22, 2006 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

    Hmmm. . you might ask the BTK 1300 what they think about it! As the Electronic Privacy Information Center put it: “Over 1300 men were tested in the unsuccessful DNA sweep.” Unsuccessful being the operative word (What, did they think Rader would just meekly give himself away–oh, that’s right!–He DID give himself away. Before he got sloppy, the WPD didn’t have a clue. . .)

    And what about that bill to collect–and keep!–people’s DNA when they’re arrested? Anyone keeping up on that?

    Here’s a good place to get a free brochure on what to consider if you’re, ahem, “asked” to give a sample:

    http://acluwichita.org

  5. sotheysaid
    Posted March 23, 2006 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    You can thank Representative Pat Colloton and Representative Terri Huntington along with Speaker of the House Doug Mays for doing the DNA bill.

    You can bet that it will come back and haunt all of us someday. They said it was a way of being tough on crime but it was just another way for the government to have their hands on you.