Illustration of a man and a woman standing in front of a DNA helix

A Proposal for Localized Review to Safeguard Genetic Database Privacy

By Robert I. Field, Anthony W. Orlando, and Arnold J. Rosoff

Large genetic databases pose well-known privacy risks. Unauthorized disclosure of an individual’s data can lead to discrimination, public embarrassment, and unwanted revelation of family secrets. Data leaks are of increasing concern as technology for reidentifying anonymous genomes continues to advance.

Yet, with the exception of California and Virginia, state legislative attempts to protect data privacy, most recently in Florida, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, have failed to garner widespread support. Political resistance is particularly stiff with respect to a private right of action. Therefore, we propose a federal regulatory approach, which we describe below.

Read More

Doctor, DNA, microscope concept illustration.

Legislative Success in FL Suggests Time is Ripe for Further Genetic Nondiscrimination Protections

By Anna C F Lewis and Anya E R Prince

On July 1, a law banning the use of genetic information by life, long-term care, and disability income insurers took effect in Florida.

Florida’s success marks a potential turning point of bipartisan appeal for this issue.

The passage of this law, which we explore in a recent article published in Genetics in Medicine, the official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG), was propelled by a campaign that argued that an individual’s DNA should not be weaponized against them, that affordable insurance shouldn’t just be for the genetic elite, and that an individual should be able to keep their genetic data private.

Read More

Uncertainty and Immutability: Arguments for Genetic Nondiscrimination

By Kaitlyn Dowling, based on research by the Cyberlaw Clinic at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society

Illustration of a gavel made out of a DNA helixIn a year-long series on Bill of Health, we’ll be exploring the legal scholarship on genetic non- discrimination. We’ll talk more about GINA and state laws protecting citizens from genetic discrimination. We hope these posts help shed light on this complex and ever-more-relevant area for legal scholars, policymakers, and the public at large. Read the previous posts in the series.

We’ve covered the history of genetic non-discrimination legislation and the potential risks of being discriminated against in housing and lending and education based on genetic data. Those risks are clear: there are many reasons why a bank, landlord, or school might want to take a person’s genetic information (and, thus, their potential future health) into account. Let’s take a deeper dive into two broad arguments in favor of strong privacy protections for genetic information and their consequences.

 

Uncertainty

A common policy argument in favor of genetic non-discrimination legislation is that genetic discrimination is unjust because the outcomes implicated by one’s genes may never manifest. In 2001, President George W. Bush stated that “[g]enetic discrimination is unfair to workers and their families. It is unjustified – among other reasons, because it involves little more than medical speculation. A genetic predisposition toward cancer or heart disease does not mean the condition will develop.” Read More

Illustration of a street lined with houses

Genetic Discrimination in Housing and Lending: What’s the Risk?

By Kaitlyn Dowling, based on research by the Cyberlaw Clinic at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society

Illustration of a gavel made out of a DNA helixIn a year-long series on Bill of Health, we’ll be exploring the legal scholarship on genetic non-discrimination. We’ll talk more about GINA and state laws protecting citizens from genetic discrimination. We hope these posts help shed light on this complex and ever-more-relevant area for legal scholars, policymakers, and the public at large. Read the previous posts in the series.

Nondiscrimination in Housing and Lending

Most states regulate the use of genetic information in some way, but protections are typically limited to employment and insurance. To most people, those two areas of protection seem obvious: it’s easy to see why your health insurer would want to know if you’re likely to become expensive to cover. Likewise, you can also understand why potential employers would want to know if they’re about to hire a worker who’s likely to need significant time off to attend to health issues. Only a select number of states ban genetic information discrimination in other contexts, like education, disability insurance, and life insurance.

Read More

books

Genetic Discrimination in Education: What’s the Risk?

By Kaitlyn Dowling, based on research by the Cyberlaw Clinic at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society

Illustration of a gavel made out of a DNA helixIn a new, year-long series on Bill of Health, we’ll be exploring the legal scholarship on genetic non-discrimination. We’ll talk more about GINA and state laws protecting citizens from genetic discrimination. We hope these posts help shed light on this complex and ever-more-relevant area for legal scholars, policymakers, and the public at large.

As discussed in our last post, most states regulate the use of genetic information in some way, although usually only in employment and insurance. Comparatively few states have protections against genetic discrimination in other contexts. Today, we’re exploring education protections in eight states: California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.

In comparison with other genetic non-discrimination protections, most states have not acted to implement protections in the education context. California, West Virginia, and Washington are the only states out of the eight surveyed with these types of protections.

Read More