Experts Call For Federal Regulation Of Genetic Ancestry Testing

Imagine donating a sample of your DNA to help researchers study the genetics of diabetes. The disease is common among your friends and family, and you're proud of your role in finding out why. Now, imagine that some time later, you learn that your DNA has been used for other studies on topics you never expected — schizophrenia, human migration, inbreeding. Although your name isn't attached to the sample anymore, scientists are using your DNA to draw conclusions about your community and your ancestors. Some of these studies violate your cultural beliefs.

That's what happened to the Havasupai Tribe of Arizona. In 2004, they sued Arizona State University, the institution that originally collected the DNA, for failing to provide ethical oversight on the use of the samples. The case is still working its way through the courts.

Genetic ancestry tests, which can cost just a few hundred dollars and require only a simple cheek swab, are gaining popularity among genealogy hobbyists and curiosity-seekers. But without clear rules and regulations, consumers may not be getting what they were promised. (Lee wrote specifically about the challenges posed by the direct-to-consumer genetic testing industry in the June 5 issue of The American Journal of Bioethics.)

Science is a better place for it. Ethics is too broad to use as the reasoning for the religion category. But meh ...

Honestly, I see nothing wrong with it, as long as they don't tamper with the natural DNA. One thing it will aid in is helping to keep accidental incest incidents to a minimum, if they allow people to utilize it for purposes such as that. As for the studies, it could possibly help in several medical advances in the future.

Incest is a minor concern. It is more a social taboo then a danger. Was watching part of a program the other day and the couple were cousins, it only increased the chance for defects by 2 percent.

They pointed out that we allow people with Genetic defects in the family to marry and reproduce and that is a 40 percent chance. We allow women over the age of 40 to reproduce and that raises the odds high too, forgot the number but way over 2 percent.

What happened to that mantra " 2 consenting adults" anyway? Only good for Gays, ehh?

Hmm? You must have me confused with someone else again. Incest chances increase the closer they get, and not everyone who is adopted knows they are, so there is always a chance of brother and sister getting together, which would be dangerous genetically.

Not proven. The reality it only becomes a problem if you have generations of inbreeding. And again how can you justify gays marrying but deny people from marrying because they are related?

Um ... why are you insisting on interjecting gays into the discussion? Are you that focused on homosexuality that you just can't stop thinking about it?

The risk of long term inbreeding is possible if you become too relaxed on precautions, that's why the laws exist, to stop long term not the individual inbreeding. The laws are to protect the innocent offspring who have no choice in the matter, are you not for protecting babies?

The risk of long term inbreeding is possible if you become too relaxed on precautions, that's why the laws exist, to stop long term not the individual inbreeding. The laws are to protect the innocent offspring who have no choice in the matter, are you not for protecting babies?

Actually, the laws exist, like many morality laws, because individuals found the idea repugnant and reprehensible (which makes sense, if one accepts the evolutionary and moral instinct models)

True, however science has come up with a valid reasoning for those laws as well ... so meh.

Innocent offspring? Do you support abortion? If you do,do NOT EVER use that term again.

Once again if the excuse to allow gays to marry is that it is "2 consenting adults" then you have not got a leg to stand on.

Ohh by the way, polygamists are busy building their cases based on the mantra that as long as it is consenting adults it is ok.

Why is it that the "anti-gay" crowd wants this connection? So that when they do get the right they can then say they have a valid excuse to practice their real perversions? I wonder, but it seems the only valid reason.

I support giving the mother the responsibility to make the right or wrong decision and refuse to have another womans moral choices on my conscience. Of course, you have to actually read to comprehend that.