Economist Debate on the Ethics of DNA Databasing
The Economist is currently having an Oxford-style online debate concerning the ethics of DNA databasing. Here’s how it works: The debate “revolves around an assertion that is defended on one side (the ‘proposition’) and assailed on another (the ‘opposition’) in a contest hosted and overseen by a moderator. Each side has three chances to persuade readers: opening, rebuttal and closing. In Economist Debates, proposition and opposition each consist of a single speaker, experts in the issue at hand. [...] Those attending an Oxford-style debate participate in two ways: by voting to determine the debate’s winner and by addressing comments to the moderator. The same holds here. As a reader, you are encouraged to vote. As long as the debate is open, you may change your vote as many times as you change your mind. And you are encouraged to air your own views by sending comments to the moderator.”
The proposition: This house believes that people’s DNA sequences are their business, and nobody else’s.
Defending the proposition is Arthur Caplan, Emmanuel and Robert Hart Professor of Bioethics and Director, Centre for Bioethics, Penn University.
There are, it is increasingly said, plenty of reasons why people you know and many you don’t ought to have access to your DNA or data that are derived from it. Have you ever had sexual relations outside a single, monogamous relationship? Well then, any children who resulted from your hanky-panky might legitimately want access to your DNA to establish paternity or maternity.
Against the proposition is J. Craig Venter, Founder and president of the J. Craig Venter Institute and founder and CEO of Synthetic Genomic.
As we progress from the first human genome to sequence hundreds, then thousands and then millions of individual genomes, the value for medicine and humanity will only come from the availability and analysis of comprehensive, public databases containing all these genome sequences along with as complete as possible phenotype descriptions of the individuals.
I encourage you to join the debate.
Possibly related posts: