politics

Misha Angrist has written a strong guest post at Daniel MacArthur's "Genetic Future", taking a clear stand in favor of disclosure of genetic information from research studies. In response to the argument that full access to genetic information might "disturb" people:

If you told me I had an inoperable tumor, don’t you think that would mess with my head? In the old days, doctors wouldn’t tell their patients such things (I know, I know—you’re not my doctor). But anyway, who the hell are you to decide what might or might not mess with my head? How do you know I won’t be more upset if you DON’T tell me? And why would it jeopardize my ability to get insurance? Because I’m only asking you to disclose it to ME, not to append it to my medical record or my Facebook page. Your consent form says you will take all kinds of steps to keep my information confidential, but that it might be examined by the FDA, the NIH, etc. So…that means it would be okay for some bureaucrat to peruse it but not me?

Well, of course. Bureaucrats mind your own business so you don't have to!

LA Times: "UC Berkeley adjusts freshman orientation's gene-testing program."

Where "adjusts" means the state's Public Health Department blocked them from reporting any test results to individual students, so they took the 1000 saliva samples and made a big blind pool to have something to talk about during their orientation program.

The thing that bothers me now:

The state Senate Education Committee on Wednesday defeated a bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Chris Norby (R-Fullerton), that would have restricted UC's and Cal State's ability to seek students' DNA.

One wonders what else the bill contained. Will DNA samples be required for university admission in the future?

My previous skeptical entries: "Berkeley DNA comments", "Berkeley DNA tests revisited", "UC-Berkeley genetic tests for freshmen".

(via 80beats)

It's been a busy week for DNA news. In the DNA arrest database example, Congress seems to have no problem with more testing. In the case of personal genomics companies, Congress seems ready to move toward more government control of the industry -- announcing hearings in the wake of FDA inquiries into direct-to-consumer genomics testing.

Most of the best reporting is being done outside the mainstream press, particularly by Dan Vorhaus of Genomics Law Report ("Breaking: Congress to Investigate DTC Genetic Testing", "FDA Puts the Brakes on Pathway-Walgreens Pairing; What’s Next for DTC?", "Of Drugstores and Devices: Parsing the FDA’s Evolving DTC 'Policy'").

Some have expected government action in this area for several years now, so the current moves by Congress and the FDA are not surprising. But it's not clear why the Pathway Genomics Walgreens announcement set off their alarms. Here's Vorhaus:

So what is it, exactly, about the Pathway/Walgreens partnership that prompted the FDA to act so quickly and publicly? Would the FDA’s response have been different if Pathway had partnered with Wal-Mart? With Amazon.com? And if we get all the way to Amazon.com, how different is this from what Pathway was already doing: selling its test directly to consumers through a publicly accessible website?

GenomeWeb also has good coverage of the developing story: "First Walgreens, Now House Calls: The Increasingly Bizarre Predicament of DTC Genetic Testing". Daniel MacArthur has a summary post listing the developments and providing some commentary: "Where to next for personal genomics?"

If you're a regular reader, you may remember my comments on some geologists' attempt to define an "Anthropocene" epoch to recognize the world-changing scope of human activities -- sort of like a global anthill ("'Anthropocene'? WhaAAAH?!").

If so, you were two years ahead of the trend. The geologists have continued to organize, and the tipping point may be near, as Elizabeth Kolbert reports ("The Anthropocene Debate: Marking Humanity’s Impact"). I've seen a lot of links to this article, and it does capture the arguments of the idea's proponents.

I continue to think that "Holocene" marks our impact pretty well, and since we can't predict how massive human impacts will be in the next few hundred years, it hardly makes sense to mark the last couple hundred as a new epoch. But politics are driving the issue:

In general, Williams said, the reaction that the working group had received to its efforts so far has been positive. “Most of the geologists and stratigraphers that we’ve spoken with think it’s a very good idea in that they agree that the degree of change is very significant.”

I'm skeptical that there is any scientific value to the concept. I do see the opportunity to reflect on the question of what makes an epoch boundary worth noting. But I don't think we should presuppose the answer, and I favor conservativsm. Still, maybe they can get the radiocarbon people to change "B. P." to "B. A." That would be fun.

I also question whether "Anthropocene" has the political value that its proponents perceive.