antony@george.lbl.gov (Antony A. Courtney) (09/25/90)
Biologist, Researchers, and any other interested parties; As part of a project for a course entitled "Politics and Power", I am exploring the gray area of legislation surrounding the use of genetic tests. The press has a very definite, rather paranoid perspective on this issue, which is why I am posting here. I hope that a few of you can provide information relevant to BOTH sides of the issue, and not the simplistic (and in my view myopic) fear of "Brave New World" if the government becomes involved in any way which the press seems to thrive upon. Such questioning is important and valuable to keep government honest, but does not make for a particularly fair rhetorical exploration of the issue. The issue, as stated for my class is as follows: Should congress provide extra incentives to those parents whose genetic profiles indicate their children will be healthy? The definition of "healthy" of course gets tricky, but assume, for rhetorical purposes that we can all agree on what "healthy" is. I don't think there are too many people out there who will argue that Cystic Fibrosis is a "healthy" characteristic. The tone of this issue statement is important. Congress is not STOPPING anyone from having children, so is not "weeding out" any genes DIRECTLY and is only focusing on genes which EVERYONE will agree are bad. The Pro argument is that Congress has a responsibility to ensure the health and well-being of the population, and should encourage people to act responsibly in deciding about children. I think most would agree that it would be NICE if people decided not to have children if they knew those children would have some genetic disease, hence removing such "inferior" genes from the gene pool. Furthermore, (a) other nations will be doing it, and it may have a far more elitist bent to it, and (b) congress isn't "stopping" anyone from having children, they are just providing "encouragement" for those that will have healthy children. Con argument is that if an individual is "genetically superior", then he should be able to survive and adapt best anyway, and is about the LAST person who should need incentives or assistance. Further con argument is that added incentives today turn into necessities tommorow. As time goes on, people will NEED to pass a certain genetic test to qualify for these "incentive programs" if they are to have any hope of affording children. Any information or arguments you can offer which assist either side of the issue would be appreciated tremendously, as would pointers to sources, etc. This class takes the form of a model congress, so it should be particularly interesting to observe how the controversy takes form. I'd be glad to send information about the outcome to anyone who helps with information or arguments on either side. Furthermore, I recognize that there may be many out there who have a particular view on this issue, but because of political pressures or the amount of friction taking a certain stand would generate, do not wish to come out and take a stand. If you wish to offer your opinions/arguments via email, I can insure your confidentiality. My main interest is in collecting arguments. Other than that, however, I would rather like to see pro and con aspects of this issue explored publically. The string of postings would hopefully be a rather interesting tangent to what are fairly underused newsgroups. Thanks for you help, antony P.S. The viewpoints and biases in this article do not in ANY WAY reflect those of my employer. They are probably quite different, this being berkeley and all... -- ******************************************************************************* Antony A. Courtney antony@george.lbl.gov Advanced Development Group ucbvax!csam.lbl.gov!antony Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (415) 486-6692
usenet@nlm.nih.gov (usenet news poster) (09/27/90)
In article <7197@dog.ee.lbl.gov> antony@george.lbl.gov (Antony A. Courtney) writes: > As part of a project for a course entitled "Politics and Power", I am >exploring the gray area of legislation surrounding the use of genetic tests. >[...] The issue, as stated for my class is as follows: > >Should congress provide extra incentives to those parents whose genetic >profiles indicate their children will be healthy? The issue is how we wish to control the indiscriminant use of molecular analysis, not how we want to promote it. In many societies, including our own, the sex of a fetus significantly affects the decisions parents make following amniocentesis. How long will it be before markers are linked to "desireable" traits such as height or hair color? In a competitive society, there is a tremendous potential for abuse based on parents perception of the possible advantages or disadvantages of particular alleles. Consider health insurance. Is it acceptable for an insurer to charge higher rates to parents who carry cystic fibrosis genes? How about sickle cell carriers? Is it racially discriminatory to test couples for sickle cell trait before marriage? Is it racists not to? Should an employer be allowed to genetically screen current or prospective employees? Should individuals with an increased risk of diabetes, coronary heart disease, or Alzheimer's disease be hired? Or fired, or promoted? Should employers be allowed to subject individuals with particularly inducible cytochrome p-450 alleles to increased levels of toxins? All it takes to get a PCRable sample of DNA for analysis is a spoonful of saliva after you rinse your mouth out, a few hair follicles, or a cup of urine. Technically it is not hard, and many of the markers noted above are already known. Several are carried by a significant proportion of our population. The issue your class needs to discuss is how we make the transition from a world where genetic disease was an unknown and risks were shared into a world where these diseases are predictable and the economic incentives will be strongly against sharing the burden. >Antony A. Courtney antony@george.lbl.gov >Advanced Development Group ucbvax!csam.lbl.gov!antony >Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (415) 486-6692 David States states@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov National Center for Biotechnology Information National Library of Medicine