Old profile (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
bravocharliesierra) wrote2012-05-21 01:23 pm
bravocharliesierra) wrote2012-05-21 01:23 pm
Cloning
I saw some articles today regarding a potential law in California for DNA
Privacy<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=california-considers-dna>.
It's an interesting concept. I mean, in all honesty, yes, our DNA does
belong to us as individuals. However, if we agree to allow it to be used
for scientific research, how much could it impede progress of the research
if they had to keep coming back to people or keep finding new people to get
consent to test for new things?
And really, is family medical history really that big of a deal?
I guess my questions are: Is more legislation worth the administrative
costs and time lost for research facilities, just to protect your genetic
data? What is the harm in your genetic data being accessed? How open-ended
would contracts with researchers have to be in order to make it feasible to
continue their research without losses?
The University of California has submitted a formal letter objecting to
> the bill, estimating that the measure could increase administrative costs
> by up to $594,000 annually—money which would come out of the cash-strapped
> state's General Fund. The university has also expressed concern that its
> researchers would suffer competitive losses in obtaining research grants.
That is a hell of a lot of money. Between that and the money spent
preparing and debating this bill, which is worth it: constantly monitoring
the use of DNA, or more rapidly and more affordable answers to questions
about diseases and genetic predispositions to illness? Is the solution
instead to create some sort of DNA copyright where any use of our DNA and
genomic data that results in profit results in effective royalties to us?
There is a concern that insurance companies would use our information to
create higher cost brackets. First, we already share our family history
with insurance companies, and second, why wouldn't we just have to agree to
them having access to it, just like when signing a release form to a
scientific research facility?
If I signed over my DNA in an agreement that tied my name to it, all I
would want is a regular update of what it was being used for - I wouldn't
want to share my DNA anonymously.
What do you think?
Privacy<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=california-considers-dna>.
It's an interesting concept. I mean, in all honesty, yes, our DNA does
belong to us as individuals. However, if we agree to allow it to be used
for scientific research, how much could it impede progress of the research
if they had to keep coming back to people or keep finding new people to get
consent to test for new things?
And really, is family medical history really that big of a deal?
I guess my questions are: Is more legislation worth the administrative
costs and time lost for research facilities, just to protect your genetic
data? What is the harm in your genetic data being accessed? How open-ended
would contracts with researchers have to be in order to make it feasible to
continue their research without losses?
The University of California has submitted a formal letter objecting to
> the bill, estimating that the measure could increase administrative costs
> by up to $594,000 annually—money which would come out of the cash-strapped
> state's General Fund. The university has also expressed concern that its
> researchers would suffer competitive losses in obtaining research grants.
That is a hell of a lot of money. Between that and the money spent
preparing and debating this bill, which is worth it: constantly monitoring
the use of DNA, or more rapidly and more affordable answers to questions
about diseases and genetic predispositions to illness? Is the solution
instead to create some sort of DNA copyright where any use of our DNA and
genomic data that results in profit results in effective royalties to us?
There is a concern that insurance companies would use our information to
create higher cost brackets. First, we already share our family history
with insurance companies, and second, why wouldn't we just have to agree to
them having access to it, just like when signing a release form to a
scientific research facility?
If I signed over my DNA in an agreement that tied my name to it, all I
would want is a regular update of what it was being used for - I wouldn't
want to share my DNA anonymously.
What do you think?