His idea: to include serious genetic disease as part of the criteria on a dating app by asking users to submit their DNA for whole genome sequencing.

Sound weird?

Plenty thought so after Church, in an interview with CBSs 60 Minutes on Sunday, revealed that he is developing the genetic matchmaking tool that could be embedded in any existing dating app. The point of the DNA tool, he says, is to prevent two carriers of the same gene for a rare genetic disease from even meeting in the first place, by making sure they cant view each others dating profiles. That way, on the off chance two people meet on the app, fall in love, and have children, theyll know the baby wouldnt be at risk of having a hereditary disease.

Church calls it digiD8. And so far, it has freaked out a lot of people.

The word eugenics screamed across headlines this week. Vice called it a horrifying thing that shouldnt exist. Gizmodo said it was a dating app that only a eugenicist could love. And some advocates worried Church was trying to wipe out genetic diversity and people with disabilities altogether. Ever considered that having a disease doesnt mean a life thats tragic or full of suffering? Alice Wong, the founder of the Disability Visibility Project, wrote on Twitter.

So in an interview with The Washington Post this week, Church tried to clarify what hes planning to do and how a dating app encoded with your DNA would work. He stressed his strong opposition to eugenics while insisting his lab values genetic diversity, saying the app would only address a subset of the most severe genetic diseases, such as Tay-Sachs or cystic fibrosis.

There are a lot of diseases which are not so serious which may be beneficial to society inproviding, for example, brain diversity. We wouldnt want to lose that, Church said. But if [a baby] has some very serious genetic disease that causes a lot of pain and suffering, costs millions of dollars to treat and they still die young, thats what were trying to deal with.

Church is heading the dating app project with digiD8s cofounder and CEO, Barghavi Govindarajan, as a self-funded startup with some investors he declined to name, as the MIT Technology Review first reported after the CBS interview. Under Churchs bio on the startups website, theres just a quotation: That is not an outlandish idea.

Hes been known to make that case for a lot of his provocative ideas the timelines of which are not always clear. Church who apologized this year for accepting about $500,000 from multimillionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein between 2005 and 2007 has been saying throughout the past decade that a woolly mammoth could be brought back from extinction, or he could reverse the aging process in humans. Both of those projects are still underway at the lab, the latter of which is being tried on dogs, he and Harvard students told CBS.

By contrast, he said all the technology is already available for the dating-app tool. Now its just a matter of finding a matchmaking service that actually wants to do this.

Pushing back on the eugenics comparisons, Church said the foundation of his idea is in genetic counseling, which offers couples preconception or prenatal genetic testing to check whether their baby could be at risk of inheriting a disease.

Embedding that into an app would work like this, he said: First, you would submit a sample of your spit to a lab for whole genome sequencing. Church gave inconsistent numbers of genetic diseases that the test would screen for, at first saying 120 to 3,000 but then settling closer to 120. The results of the test would be encrypted and confidential, and not even you, the user, would get to know your results or the results of others, Church said. The rest would work just like normal online dating you just wouldnt see a small fraction of dating profiles.

About 5percent of children are born with a severe genetic disease, and so that means youre compatible with about 95percent of people, Church said. Were just adding this [tool] to all the other dating criteria.

Several bioethicists The Washington Post spoke with said they would hesitate to compare Churchs project to eugenics, which included state-sponsored forced sterilization, mass killings, or imposed breeding throughout the late 19th century to the 1970s. Eugenics is a strong word, said Barbara Koenig, director of the University of California at San Franciscos Bioethics Program.

Rather, both Koenig and Mildred Cho, a professor at Stanford Universitys Center for Biomedical Ethics, said digiD8 reminded them of the digital version of Dor Yeshorim, an Orthodox Jewish organization based in New York that beat Church to the idea by a few decades. Church has cited the group as an inspiration.

The nonprofit was founded in 1983 as a response to higher rates of Tay-Sachs a fatal genetic disorder that destroys the nervous system that was devastating certain communities, such as Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews. Before marrying, couples can go to Dor Yeshorim for genetic testing. To avoid stigmatizing people, the organization does not tell couples anything about their genes, just whether they are compatible. This is especially important in societies where theres less reliance on termination [of a pregnancy], Koenig said.

In its earlier days, the group faced virtually all the same questions and uncertainties from critics that digiD8 is encountering now. Even a decade after Dor Yeshorim was founded, The New York Times asked in a 1993 headline: Nightmare or the Dream of a New Era in Genetics?

Cho said she could understand why people reacted so negatively to Churchs idea, fearing a slippery slope or unintended consequences to the genetic technology. For now its a dating app, but how else might others harness genetic technology in a way that could further invade lives? To Churchs critics, digid8 is already over that line.

I dont think those fears are completely unfounded, Cho said. I think what people are reacting to is this sense of kind of genetic determinism, and this idea that somebodys DNA can somehow make them incompatible, as if all their other personality traits and behavior really isnt as important as their DNA.

But for Koenig and Cho, the other big question, aside from whether this will work, is whether people would even care to use it. Do people even want this in their dating app? Thats a question Church said hes trying to figure out as well.

An app seems silly to me, Koenig said. People dont fall in love and marry and have children based on purely hyper-rational decisions.

See the article here:
Harvard scientist develops DNA-based dating app to reduce genetic disease that critics call eugenics - The Boston Globe

A genetic variant in the gene transthyretin (TTR)which is found in about 3 percent of individuals of African ancestryis a more significant cause of heart failure than previously believed, according to a multi-institution study led by researchers atPenn Medicine. The study also revealed that a disease caused by this genetic variant, called hereditary transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (hATTR-CM), is significantly under-recognized and underdiagnosed.

The findings, which were published inJAMA, are particularly important given the U.S. Food and Drug Administrations approvalof the first therapy (tafamidis) for ATTR-CM in May 2019. Prior to the new therapy, treatment was largely limited to supportive care for heart failure symptoms and, in rare cases, heart transplant.

Our findings suggest that hATTR-CM is a more common cause of heart failure than its perceived to be, and that physicians are not sufficiently considering the diagnosis in certain patients who present with heart failure, says the studys corresponding authorDaniel J. Rader, chair of the Department of Genetics at Penn Medicine. With the recent advances in treatment, its critical to identify patients at risk for the disease and, when appropriate, perform the necessary testing to produce an earlier diagnosis and make the effective therapy available.

Read more at Penn Medicine News.

See the original post here:
This genetic variant is underdiagnosed, under-recognized, and deadly | Penn Today - Penn: Office of University Communications

Photo: Craig Barritt (Getty Images for The New Yorker)

Harvard geneticist George Church thinks its ludicrous to compare his dating app that uses genes to pair adults together to eugenics. Its ludicrous to think thats what Im doing, but it makes good clickbait, doesnt it? Church told The Daily Beast.

Churchs dating app would stop people from matching with potential partners with similar genetic mutations that could result in conditions like Tay-Sachs, according to The Daily Beast. It would be a premium service on already existing dating apps. Eugenics is coercive. Rather than restricting peoples options for their health and their families, were expanding them. Were not going to be forcibly sterilizing people, if thats the business model they think were up to, Church said. Thats as far from what we intend to do as can be.

Hes painting the idea as a way to help people create families. If you know what youre doing is the right thing to help families have healthy children, I dont think you need to worry whether somebody somewhere has been associated with you in a way thats less than ideal, Church told The Daily Beast.

Curious about person associated with it whos less than ideal? Church used the interview to distance his connection to the late Jeffrey Epstein, who at one point proposed inseminating hundreds of women on his New Mexico farm. Just because they hung out with me briefly doesnt mean I bought into their malarkey in any sense, just like geneticists today dont buy into the eugenics of the 1920s, Church told The Daily Beast.

Epstein was one of the funders of Churchs lab at Harvard, and Church maintained contact with the convicted sex offender after Epstein registered as sex offender. In fact, Church went to Epsteins private island, Little St. James, in 2007. But dont worry, the scientists in attendanceslept on a separate island. Scientific meetings take place all over the place, and usually youre so wrapped up in the meeting that you dont take advantage of the place youre in. This was one of those cases. We did our science nerd thing and left, Church said.

Church said doctors will be the people drawing the line about what is acceptable to weed out of offspring, likely genes that produce illnesses that cause very premature deaths, often with pain and a lot of medical costs, he said. There is no line, just as theres no line with what speed limits should be on the road, but you have to draw one, and medical doctors are very good at drawing practical lines.

The only good part of this interview is his assertion that hes open to suggestions! If any doubters, after they see whats actually there, make a compelling counterargument, I may change directions, Church told The Daily Beast. Im very open to suggestions, and Im very interested to hear what everybody has to say once they see whats really there.

My compelling counterargument: Being casual about eugenics has never ended well.

See the article here:
Harvard Geneticist Making Genetics-Based Dating App Thinks It's Ridiculous That We're Comparing It to Eugenics - Jezebel

Software company Herdwatch and AI company Dovea Genetics, two leading Irish companies in the Agri-sector, both headquartered in Tipperary with international operations, have entered a strategic partnership which will see the Herdwatch farm management software solution adopted by potentially thousands of Dovea Genetics customers.

Dovea Genetics was founded in 1952 and has been a leader in bovine artificial insemination (AI) since, while Herdwatch is part of FRS Network (Farm Relief Services), a farmer-owned co-operative established in 1980.

Herdwatch is used on over 11,000 farms in Ireland and the UK, making it the leading farm management software platform in those markets, while Dovea exports to 26 countries.

The two companies hope to bring even more efficiency gains to farmers who need every bit of help they can get in the current climate.

We are very pleased to team up with Herdwatch, as we share a common ethos and are both passionate about supporting our customers in making the best decisions for their farm business, said Dovea general manager Dr Ger Ryan.

He said that the Herdwatch solution had a full breeding life cycle module, integrated with ICBF, where farmers can track and manage serves, scans and get automatic reminders on due dates through-out their season which are all very important for our farmers.

Herdwatch has made a name for itself over the past six years by helping farmers save hours on paperwork every week, and make better decisions via an easy-to-use app on mobile, tablet or laptop.

The Roscrea-based software company is set to deliver even more innovation as it launches a completely new version of their software this week.

This new app, called Herdwatch NG (Next Generation) is leaner, meaner and faster than ever, according to the company.

FRS are very excited to be associated with the Herdwatch success story in Tipperary and right across the country, said Peter Byrne, FRS Network CEO and Herdwatch director.

This Next Generation app had taken significant investment and as a farmer-owned co-op FRS was delighted it will make such a difference for farmers, he said.

The new app is being launched at the Winter Fair in Belfast by rugby legend Rory Best, who uses Herdwatch on his suckler farm in County Down.

The Next Generation Herdwatch app will be a great benefit to me as I transition from professional rugby back to looking after our herd at home along with a few other projects. Like in Rugby, you have to make things which are complicated appear simple, and Herdwatch, which was already easy to use, will be faster and easier than ever before, said Rory.

The Herdwatch Next Generation app is available to download for free on the Apple App Store and Android Play Store. A free plan is available for all farmers, with yearly PRO memberships starting at 79, plus VAT.

For more information about Herdwatch, visit http://www.herdwatch.com or call 0505-34400.

For more information about Dovea Genetics, visit http://www.doveagenetics.ie or call 0504-21755.

Read more:
Tipperary's Dovea Genetics and Herdwatch join forces to launch new initiative - TipperaryLive.ie

Chun-Jun Guo

Department of Bioengineering and ChEM-H, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.Jill Roberts Institute for Research in Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, NY 10021, USA.

Breanna M. Allen

Graduate Program in Biomedical Sciences, Departments of Otolaryngology and Microbiology and Immunology, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.

Kamir J. Hiam

Graduate Program in Biomedical Sciences, Departments of Otolaryngology and Microbiology and Immunology, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.

Dylan Dodd

Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.

Will Van Treuren

Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.

Steven Higginbottom

Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.

Kazuki Nagashima

Department of Bioengineering and ChEM-H, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.

Curt R. Fischer

Department of Bioengineering and ChEM-H, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.

Justin L. Sonnenburg

Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.

Matthew H. Spitzer

Graduate Program in Biomedical Sciences, Departments of Otolaryngology and Microbiology and Immunology, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.

Michael A. Fischbach

Department of Bioengineering and ChEM-H, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.

View post:
Depletion of microbiome-derived molecules in the host using Clostridium genetics - Science Magazine

According to a statement on behalf of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) published Dec. 13 in the organization's official journal, Genetics in Medicine, there is insufficient evidence to recommend universal genetic testing for BRCA1/2 alone or in combination with multi-gene panels for all breast cancer patients.

The guidance from the ACMG differs from a consensus guideline issued in February by the American Society of Breast Surgeons, which recommended genetic testing for all newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer. The ACMG recommends evaluations before genetic testing.

What we are saying is that all women with breast cancer should be evaluated for the need for genetic testing based on existing clinical criteria."

Tuya Pal, MD

Pal is one of the lead authors and associate director of Cancer Health Disparities at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center.

The group wrote the statement on behalf of the ACMG Professional Practice and Guidelines Committee.

"We expect that the evidence to support testing may evolve at different rates for different genes, and we expect that therapeutic indications will play a major role in the incorporation of genes to multi-gene panels," Pal and co-authors stated in the paper.

"Consequently, as guidelines for testing are developed, it is critical to ensure they are supported by evidence and resources supporting strategies that include screening, medical and/or surgical care as indicated. Ideally, professional societies should work together to weigh data, formulate and harmonize evidence-based recommendations and seek to reduce barriers to care."

The ACMC document stressed the importance of genetic testing and said all breast cancer patients should be evaluated to determine whether germline genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer is warranted.

They noted that only a small proportion of the at-risk population for hereditary breast cancers has been tested, with one estimate indicating that less than 10% of adults with BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in the U.S. have been identified. Testing rates are disproportionately lower among racial and ethnic minority populations.

"As genetic testing now has the potential to guide cancer care, it has become imperative to ensure that all populations may benefit from these tremendous advances and that existing disparities in testing do not widen," Pal said. "In order to ensure this, we need to be intentional in developing and disseminating efforts such that improved outcomes based on genetic testing are experienced across populations."

The ACMG document provided the following guidance for clinicians to consider:

In discussions with patients, clinicians should be aware of the current insufficient evidence to support genetic testing for all patients with breast cancer.

After identification of a pathogenic or likely pathogenic mutation in moderately penetrant breast cancer genes, clinicians should recognize that guidance is based on consensus recommendations and that enhanced screening, to date, has not been associated with enhanced survival or earlier stage diagnosis.

Whenever genetic testing is performed on a clinical basis, the testing should include full gene sequencing and be conducted in a lab certified or accredited by either the College of American Pathologists or Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments.

Patients should be counseled about the implications of genetic testing by trained genetics professionals or health care providers with special expertise in cancer genetics principles.

Patients who have a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in an established breast cancer associated gene should be educated about the importance of cascade testing of family members.

See the rest here:
ACMG recommends evaluations of breast cancer patients before genetic testing - News-Medical.net

In a new study, a high genetic risk score (GRS) was associated with an increased risk of organ damage, renal (kidney) dysfunction and mortality in people with lupus. Organ damage, cardiovascular disease, proliferative nephritis (kidney lesions), end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and presence of antiphospholipid antibodies were successfully predicted by a high GRS in people with lupus. GRSs have been applied in several fields of medicine and may be a potential tool for prediction of disease severity in lupus.

Clinical data from 1,001 people with lupus were analyzed. Their health outcomes and cumulative genetic risk were compiled and compared against the GRSs of 5,524 people with lupus and 9,859 healthy people. Lupus was more prevalent in the high-, compared with the low-GRS group Patients in the high GRS group had a 6-year earlier average disease onset, displayed higher prevalence of damage accrual, ERSD, proliferative nephritis, certain types of autoantibodies and positive lupus anticoagulant test, compared with patients in the low-GRS group. Survival analysis showed earlier onset of the first organ damage, first cardiovascular event, nephritis, ESRD and decreased overall survival in people with high GRSs compared to those with low scores.

Genetic profiling may be useful for predicting outcomes in people with lupus and aid in the clinical decision process. Understanding the genetic contribution to permanent organ damage is important for understanding how lupus develops. Learn more about the genetics of lupus.

Read the study

Go here to read the rest:
Genetic Risk Scores May Predict Severity and Outcomes in People with Lupus - Lupus Foundation of America

Should germline genetic testing be offered to all patients with breast cancer? The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) addresses this important question in a new statement published in Genetics in Medicine, "Points to Consider: Is There Evidence to Support BRCA1/2 and Other Inherited Breast Cancer Genetic Testing for All Breast Cancer Patients? A Statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics."

Of all cancers that develop in women in the United States (US), breast cancer has the highest incidence, regardless of race or ethnicity. Approximately 5-10% of breast cancers are estimated to result from hereditary causes, the majority of which are attributed to pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genes, although variants in other genes such as PALB2, TP53, PTEN, CDH1, CHEK2 and ATM also contribute.

Identification of inherited cancer risk empowers individuals and their families to prevent cancers or detect them early. Furthermore, incorporating genetic testing results into patients' care plans has the potential to guide treatment and improve outcomes. But testing alone will not improve outcomes. Implementation of appropriate care following testing is required and data are needed to generate evidence that informs clinical practice.

As progress in precision medicine continues, it is important that patients receive accurate information to ensure the implementation of risk reducing strategies and evidence-based cancer genomics best practices. The purpose of this new ACMG points-to-consider document is to outline the rationale for ongoing support of existing evidence-based guidelines built on a risk stratification approach while data related to broader testing strategies continues to emerge.

Medical geneticists play an important role in facilitating the best care and practices of patients with cancer or a predisposition to develop cancer. This Points to Consider document acknowledges the complexity of professional organization guidelines in the cancer space. Medical geneticists are uniquely qualified to analyze the literature that informs professional organizations and their guidelines. Implementation of cancer genetic testing guidelines is best when carried out with input and in many cases under the direction of a medical geneticist with cancer expertise."

Anthony R. Gregg, MD, MBA, FACOG, FACMG, ACMG President

The new ACMG document provides points for clinicians to consider in the context of testing breast cancer patients for inherited cancer predisposition, including:

The points-to-consider document concludes by stating, "With the advances in sequencing technologies and increasing access to and expanding indications for genetic testing, it remains critical to ensure that implementation of testing is based on evidence. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to recommend genetic testing for BRCA1/2 alone or in combination with multi-gene panels for all breast cancer patients. Ideally, professional societies should work together to weigh data, formulate and harmonize evidence-based recommendations, and seek to reduce barriers to care...Moreover...the implementation of precision medicine approaches across oncology must also consider a means by which the promise of genetic testing for inherited cancer predisposition may be realized by all populations, regardless of race, ethnicity and ability to pay."

Source:

Journal reference:

Pal, T., et al. (2019) Points to consider: is there evidence to support BRCA1/2 and other inherited breast cancer genetic testing for all breast cancer patients? A statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genetics in Medicine. doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0712-x.

Read the original:
Points to consider: Should germline genetic testing be offered to all patients with breast cancer? - News-Medical.net

The deal will grant 1933 Industries license to the DNA brand for the production and sale of hemp-derived CBD products

1933 Industries Inc () (OTCMKTS:TGIFF) announced Thursday that it has signed a second licensing agreement with OG DNA Genetics, a globally recognized leading cannabis brand.

The agreement will grant 1933 Industries the license to the DNA brand for the production and sale of hemp-derived CBD products signaling DNAs first entry into the cannabidiol market. DNA will leverage 1933s vast distribution network of over 800 retail outlets throughout the US.

In 2018, the Farm Bill was passed through legislation federally legalizing the cultivation of hemp and permitting the sale of hemp-derived CBD products. This gives DNA the ability to expand itsreach into the rapidly developing CBD market and provide the highest-quality products to all 50 states and globally.

We are excited to expand our partnership with 1933, one of the leaders in the CBD wellness space, said Don Morris, co-founder of DNA Genetics. It feels good to build on an already strong relationship with a like-minded company committed to putting out the best quality products.

Chris Rebentisch, CEO of 1933 Industries, said DNA has the best quality products in the market.

Its fitting that we would work together to help bring the legacy brand into the CBD wellness space. We have an amazing lineup of products and are excited to leverage DNAs global reach through this agreement, Rebentisch said.

For more than 15 years, genetics developed by DNA have won more than 200 awards in all categories at the most prestigious cannabis events around the world, making DNA the global standard in breeding and growing truly best-in-class strains.

These awards include the High Times Top 10 Strain of the Year,which was inducted into The High Times seedbank hall of fame in 2009, the High Times 100 list of the most influential people in the industry and the High Times Trailer Blazers Award, for contributions made towards uniting the fields of entrepreneurship, politics and medicine.

1933 Industries, based in Chilliwack, British Columbia, owns licensed medical and adult-use cannabis cultivation and production assets, proprietary hemp-based, CBD-infused branded products, CBD extraction services and a specialized cannabis advisory firm.

Shares recently traded up 2.6% to C$0.20 in Canada.

--ADDS share price--

Contact the author: [emailprotected]

Follow him on Twitter @PatrickMGraham

More here:
1933 Industries signs second licensing deal with OG DNA Genetics - Proactive Investors USA & Canada

This week, GEDmatch, a genetic genealogy company that gained notoriety for giving law enforcement access to its customers DNA data, quietly informed its users it is now operated by Verogen, Inc., a company expressly formed two years ago to market next-generation [DNA] sequencing technology to crime labs.

What this means for GEDmatchs 1.3 million users and for the 60% of white Americans who share DNA with those users remains to be seen.

GEDmatch allows users to upload an electronic file containing their raw genotyped DNA data so that they can compare it to other users data to find biological family relationships. It estimates how close or distant those relationships may be (e.g., a direct connection, like a parent, or a distant connection, like a third cousin), and it enables users to determine where, along each chromosome, their DNA may be similar to another user. It also predicts characteristics like ethnicity.

Get Truthouts daily edition delivered to your inbox.

An estimated 30 million people have used genetic genealogy databases like GEDmatch to identify biological relatives and build a family tree, and law enforcement officers have been capitalizing on all that freely available data in criminal investigations. Estimates are that genetic genealogy sites were used in around 200 cases just last year. For many of those cases, officers never sought a warrant or any legal process at all.

Earlier this year, after public outcry, GEDmatch changed its previous position allowing for warrantless law enforcement searches, opted out all its users from those searches, and required all users to expressly opt in if they wanted to allow access to their genetic data. Only a small percentage did. But opting out has not prevented law enforcement from accessing consumers genetic data, as long as they can get a warrant, which one Orlando, Florida officer did last summer.

Law enforcement has argued that people using genetic genealogy services have no expectation of privacy in their genetic data because users have willingly shared their data with the genetics company and with other users and have consented to a companys terms of service. But the Supreme Court rejected a similar argument in Carpenter v. United States.

In Carpenter, the Court ruled that even though our cell phone location data is shared with or stored by a phone company, we still have a reasonable expectation of privacy in it because of all the sensitive and private information it can reveal about our lives. Similarly, genetic data can reveal a whole host of extremely private and sensitive information about people, from their likelihood to inherit specific diseases to where their ancestors are from to whether they have a sister or brother they never knew about. Researchers have even theorized at one time or another that DNA may predict race, intelligence, criminality, sexual orientation, and political ideology. Even if later disproved, officials may rely on outdated research like this to make judgements about and discriminate against people. Because genetic data is so sensitive, we have an expectation of privacy in it, even if other people can access it.

However, whether individual users of genetic genealogy databases have consented to law enforcement searches is somewhat beside the point. In all cases that we know of so far, law enforcement isnt looking for the person who uploaded their DNA to a consumer site, they are looking for that persons distant relatives people who never could have consented to this kind of use of their genetic data because they dont have any control over the DNA they happen to share with the sites users.

That means these searches are nothing more than fishing expeditions through millions of innocent peoples DNA. They are not targeted at finding specific users or based on individualized suspicion a fact the police admit because they dont know who their suspect is. They are supported only by the hope that a crime scene sample might somehow be genetically linked to DNA submitted to a genetic genealogy database by a distant relative, which might give officers a lead in a case. Theres a real question whether a warrant that allows this kind of search could ever meet the particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

These are also dragnet searches, conducted under general warrants, and no different from officers searching every house in a town with a population of 1.3 million on the off chance that one of those houses could contain evidence useful to finding the perpetrator of a crime. With or without a warrant, the Fourth Amendment prohibits searches like this in the physical world, and it should prohibit genetic dragnets like this one as well.

We need to think long and hard as a society about whether law enforcement should be allowed to access genetic genealogy databases at all even with a warrant. These searches impact millions of Americans. Although GEDmatch likely only encompasses about 0.5% of the U.S. adult population, research shows 60% of white Americans can already be identified from its 1.3 million users. This same research shows that once GEDmatchs users encompass just 2% of the U.S. population, 90% of white Americans will be identifiable.

Although many authorities once argued these kinds of searches would only be used as a way to solve cold cases involving the most terrible and serious crimes, that is changing; this year, police used genetic genealogy to implicate a teenager for a sexual assault. Next year it could be used to identify political or environmental protestors. Unlike established criminal DNA databases like the FBIs CODIS database, there are currently few rules governing how and when genetic genealogy searching may be used.

We should worry about these searches for another reason: they can implicate people for crimes they didnt commit. Although police used genetic searching to finally identify the man they believe is the Golden State Killer, an earlier search in the same case identified a different person. In 2015, a similar search in a different case led police to suspect an innocent man. Even without genetic genealogy searches, DNA matches may lead officers to suspect and jail the wrong person, as happened in a California case in 2012. That can happen because we shed DNA constantly and because our DNA may be transferred from one location to another, possibly ending up at the scene of a crime, even if we were never there.

All of this is made even more concerning by the recent acquisition of GEDmatch by a company whose main purpose is to help the police solve crimes. The ability to research family history and disease risk shouldnt carry the threat that our data will be accessible to police or others and used in ways we never could have foreseen. Genetic genealogy searches by law enforcement invade our privacy in unique ways they allow law enforcement to access information about us that we may not even know ourselves, that we have no ability to hide, and that could reveal more about us in the future than scientists know now. These searches should never be allowed even with a warrant.

Visit link:
Genetic Testing Company Acquired by Company With Ties to FBI and Law Enforcement - Truthout