Streams

DNA Secrets

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

(CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture/flickr)

Kai Wright, editorial director of Colorlines and Nation contributor, and Emma Keller, columnist for The Guardian, discuss the special they worked on together for WNYC all about DNA and how much you actually want to know about your genes. Plus, their next project: reporting on the impact of the Affordable Care Act.

Guests:

Emma Keller and Kai Wright

Comments [5]

On the afternoon of the next day, DNA testing realizes its truest social purpose:

" . . . Russian officials are taking saliva samples from orthodox Muslim women in Dagestan in an effort to gather DNA data in case they decided to blow themselves up during the Games. . . . "

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/31/russia_is_collecting_saliva_from_muslim_women_because_terrorism

Oct. 31 2013 02:13 PM

With apologies to Max Liebermann:

"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen moechte"

That's my only reaction to your guest with the "Mary Poppins" affect
and the "Nurse Ratchet" prescriptions.

"Capper from NYC" seems to be the only person who listens to this show and has the gene for human memory.
It seems like it was yesterday (about the same time that we were being promised that people could retain the health care insurance and doctors they had. Let's crowd-source how that's working.)
I remember a very public discussion about whether the much touted government medical experts were stating that it would be much better for "society" to forgo the costs of early testing for breast and prostate cancer. (e.g., http://abcnews.go.com/Health/OnCallPlusBreastCancerNews/mammogram-guidelines-spur-debate-early-detection/story?id=9099145 ; http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/08/health/la-he-psa-test-20111008 )

Is there something about your business model that prohibits taking notice of otherwise relevant public information?

Not wanting to carp (much) but, on the confidentiality-privacy issues, do the names "Snowden" or "Assange" or "Clapper" undermine your "cooing" assurances, and do you seriously believe that we can have any confidence in your promises of privacy we after acceding to your intrusive curiosity.

Oct. 30 2013 01:09 PM
Peter from MA

I work in the Biomedical Sciences, and I support wide, possibly universal DNA testing/screening in principle, but am hesitant to do so right now. Why?
1. The current laws and regulations that are supposed to guarantee one's right to genetic privacy are too weak.
2. Insufficient enforcement of such laws; a victim has to first find out that their rights to privacy were breached. I am not aware of, for example, such mechanisms such as random checks on whoever accessed such data to see if they were they authorized to do so
3. The penalties for violating people's right to keep their genetic profile privat are not severe enough. In addition to more severe mandatory criminal penalties, a legally-sanctioned testing agreement should have to include the right of anybody whose genetic profile is leaked or "outed" to receive significant monetary damages.

Oct. 30 2013 12:24 PM
jgarbuz from Queens

Why don't we just manufacture the kids in factories already, and get rid of "marriage" too while we're at it?

Oct. 30 2013 11:14 AM
Capper from NYC

Maybe your guest was strictly talking about DNA testing, but in terms of "testing" overall for hidden diseases, I understand that is actually bad for you! Getting MRI's etc.. not great.

Oct. 30 2013 11:09 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.