- FDA Rules for Cigarettes Are a Victory for Public Health, for Science (and for the Earth’s Climate?)
- Legislation Introduced to Codify Stem Cell Rules
- Commissioner Enhances FDA’s Commitment to Personalized Medicine
- Perfecting Policy on Stem Cells
- NIH and FDA Aim to Retool Regulatory Science
- DOE Leads Federal Funding for a Regional Innovation Cluster
- Certainty on the Science of Climate Change
- They’re Not Perfect Cells, But They’re Model Cells
- Genomic Medicine on the March
- President’s Budget Aims to Recharge Regional Innovation
- Event: The Science of Climate Change
- Progress in Bioethics
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
The United States Can Learn from Europe’s Genetic Privacy Laws
A commentary on Europe’s genetic privacy laws in Wednesday’s Journal of the American Medical Association reiterates how far we lag behind Europe in terms of regulating genetic information and how much we can learn from the holes in their policies. (Michael Rugnetta wrote recently here on Science Progress about British insurers moving voluntarily to protect genetic privacy.) Ine Van Hoyweghen and Klasien Horstman point out that Belgium enacted the first genetic privacy legislation in 1990, and the rest of Europe was quick to follow. The problems that arise in European law, and that may arise here in the United States as well, are problems of definition: as we learn more about our genome, more and more of our health can be linked back to our DNA, which leaves insurance and care providers in the position of having to determine what tests and information are considered “genetic.” Van Hoyweghen and Horstman also note that while those with genetic risk factors are protected, insurance costs for groups with nongenetic or lifestyle risk factors have sharply increased, creating a coverage disparity between groups who are similarly situated.
We are still learning to what extent our genomes influence our health and we still have lots of gaps to fill in our coverage of genetic privacy. GINA was an important first step, and we are fortunate to be able to draw on European experience to guide future legislation.
Comments on this article
