Comments on: Terry Furey's Lectures

I thought Mr. Furey's talk on the uses and implications of genotyping and mapping the human genome was very interesting. From his lectures, I learned about the various businesses that you can pay to genotype you to say your probability of contracting certain diseases or conditions. However, right now it seems that tracing your family's history is a more effective (and much cheaper) way to determine your susceptibility to diseases. One thing I found particularly interesting was the issue of who owns your DNA. I cannot believe that some companies are actually patenting part of my DNA sequence. According to Wikitionary, a patent is a "declaration issued by a government agency declaring someone the inventor of a new invention and having the privilege of stopping others from making, using or selling the claimed invention." Under this definition, its very hard to believe that governments actually let people patent our DNA. These people did not "invent" the DNA in are bodies, it is natural. They were just the first people to try to claim rights to it. The idea of patenting DNA and holding sole rights to "its use" is like the idea of patenting an eagle and holding sole rights to how people may want to use an eagle. It is a part of nature, not some man-made object. Now, I could understand if they wanted to patent a way to read a DNA sequence or a medicine meant to help a condition caused by a DNA sequence, because a company could invent those solutions. But the idea of a company having the sole rights to anything done with a certain DNA strand is preposterous--the company doesn't own it, it is in the "public domain" of nature, and every individual has their own copy.

Another interesting issue was about what rights people have to be protected from discrimination based on DNA. One law, the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, makes it illegal for insurance companies to deny insurance based on genetics, and employers to deny employment based on genetics. However, going in to the future, is this really something we can enforce? For one, companies could simply say they are firing you because of another reason, when in reality it is because of your DNA. Also, eventually it could become very easy and fast to read and genotype DNA, and companies could secretly test you to determine if they want to hire you or fire you. Its next to impossible to hide your DNA. People lose hair and skin cells naturally every day. All a company would have to do is find a stray hair or bodily fluid and then they could see exactly what your strengths and weaknesses are, as dictated by your DNA. Another issue around this is the question of is hiring on the basis of genes actually bad? Really, your DNA is just a bodily resume of your strengths and weaknesses as a human, and companies choose on the basis of resumes, and strengths and weaknesses, all the time. Companies are always looking to hire the best person for the job. Wouldn't a paper resume and DNA test be the best determiner of how affect you could be at your job? Also, should people who apply for jobs that could be dangerous to people with certain genetic conditions have to be tested for those genetic conditions? Not only would these people be ineffective at their job, but they may get very hurt by doing it. For example, should construction workers be tested for genetic signs that would say how likely they are to have a heart attack under physical stress? Yes, DNA testing as part of a job application seems like an invasion of privacy, but don't we, as determined individuals, want the best for our companies so we can provide the best products and services? And don't we want to make sure no one could put themselves in harms way by doing a certain job? DNA testing would allow us to make sure we are hiring healthy and effective people, just as the required resume, physical examination, and health disclosure forms do in today's workplace.