genomeboy.com

Andrew Yates of Think Gene takes issue with my impassioned defense of GINA:

…you say that’s unfair and cite some fringe cases. I of course agree that your examples are unjust. Yet, I have yet to read a good argument why it is theoretically wrong if genetics is used as an objective standard to select people for services, employment, admission, etc. That good argument is not what you wrote.

How about this: It is theoretically wrong because we know that we are more than our genes and because we have a long paper trail of misguided and inappropriate social engineering supposedly based on genes.

How are we more than our genes? I received my Health Compass data from Navigenics the other day (I hope to post about this soon). Of the 17 conditions for which I received reports, heritabilities ranged from 0.13 (glaucoma) to 0.8 (Crohn’s). Most were in the 0.6 range. My lifetime risks, excluding all phenotypic data other than gender, ranged from 0.02% (lupus) to 41% (obesity). The latter is a bummer, of course, but it’s hardly deterministic (my current BMI is 26, FWIW).

The heritability of schizophrenia is on the order of 0.8–yet somehow we still haven’t found a single major susceptibility locus. Meanwhle, we have genotyped tens of thousands of people to find loci that contribute to height. Well, guess what: there are 54 and counting, each affecting height by an average of 2-3 mm (the standard deviation for height in the population is 7 cm).

To exclude a pilot because he carries a highly penetrant mendelian allele for narcolepsy is one thing, but it’s a rare thing. Genetic discrimination may be rare, too, but given the Burlington Northern precedent, given the military’s recent misapplication of genetics, given the entire ugly history of 20th-century eugenics, am I prepared to believe that government and corporate bureaucracies can be trusted to sort the wheat from the chaff and get “objective” genetic testing right without giving those getting tested some explicit legal protection?

Not yet.

An op-ed I wrote with Bob Cook-Deegan on the imminent passage (we hope!) of GINA into law appears in the Oakland Tribune:

…people fear genetic discrimination, which is what makes this new law so historic. In a recent survey, the Genetics and Public Policy Center found that 92 percent of respondents worried that genetic tests could be used in ways that are harmful to those getting tested. Only one in four said they would trust insurers with access to their genetic test results. Just one in six would trust employers.

The consequences of such fear, whether well-founded or not, could be grave. If people at risk for inherited diseases are unwilling to undergo genetic testing, they forego information of potentially immense importance to their lives. And if that same mistrust prevents citizens from participating in genetic and genomic research, the process by which our society develops new medicines and cures will suffer. Therefore, if GINA serves as nothing more than a reassuring symbol to a skittish public, it’s still well worth the price of the occasional lawsuit.

NEW YORK (GenomeWeb News) – A little less than a week after its passage by the US Senate, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act has been passed by the US House of Representatives by a vote of 414 to 1.The bill is the closest it has ever come to being signed into law after being considered in various iterations by both chambers of Congress over the past decade. GINA, which would protect Americans from discrimination based on information from genetic tests, had previously passed in the House twice before — most recently last year, when the vote was 420 to 3 in favor of its passage.

And by the way, we’ll miss you Ron Paul, you ornery cuss.

They said it couldn’t be done.

(hat tip)