By the Associated Press in the Wall Street Journal (with Reuters video):

President Bush on Wednesday signed legislation to protect people from losing their jobs or health insurance when genetic testing reveals they are susceptible to costly diseases.

Broadly embraced in Congress, the antidiscrimination measure aims to ensure that advances in DNA testing won’t end up being used against people.

The new law forbids employers and insurance companies from denying employment, promotions or health coverage to people when genetic tests show they have a predisposition to cancer, heart disease or other ailments.

“It protects our citizens from having our genetic information misused,” the president said.

Sponsors of the legislation call it a groundbreaking protection of civil rights.

(more…)

The New York Times‘ Amy Harmon gets the genetic 411 from the company 23andme. She’s exploring the impact of new genetic technology on American life, and wants to assess her risk of genetic disease. Along the way, she obsesses about her weight, her intelligence, and her chance of losing her insurance coverage. Was the test worth it? You decide.

Related stories:

From Wired magazine: 23andme will decode your DNA for $1,000. Welcome to the age of genomics.

From Forbes:  Personal genome race goes into overdrive; Iceland’s DeCODE Genetics is launching a new service to analyze your genome for $985.

Law professor Albert Scherr of Franklin Pierce University has been awarded a two-year grant from NIH to study genetic evidence and its relationship to the Constitution. In an era in which knowledge of the human genome is growing exponentially, the study will have particular relevance for everyone who has a family history of genetic conditions or disabilities.

Let’s connect the dots:

• Every state has a statute that allows police to collect genetic name-tag information from certain groups of people.
• Seven states take DNA information from all people arrested, even if not convicted.
• There are proposals in some states to build a database by taking samples from every child born.
• Gathering a person’s DNA without their knowledge is not illegal.

And what will governments do with all that genetic information? Scherr says the data collection raises thorny issues — including the possible depersonalization of groups of people.

“You can get to genetic exceptionism, over-determining who people are,” he said. “There can be the thought that we only need your genes to know all about you, who you are. We can forget about one’s sense of one’s self, that being part of what makes us who we are. We could lose our sense of humanity.”

From Seacoastonline.com

The current Economist magazine analyzes the latest advances in genetic testing, and comes away convinced that they will cause upheaval in the insurance industry. Insurance companies fear that those with no genetic worries will stop paying for coverage. Consumers fear that insurance companies will redline anyone with wayward DNA. And, say the Economist’s editors, it’s entirely likely that society will at last be forced to conduct a public discussion of healthcare trade-offs, like rationing of care and denial of coverage based on family medical history, that have long been taking place out of public view.

Let’s stand back and look at an even bigger picture here. This is a leading example of science galloping ahead of society’s ability — and willingness — to grapple with ethical consequences. If everyone will soon be able to unravel their children’s chromosomal mysteries at reasonable rates, obstetricians and gynecologists may be facing more “wrongful birth” lawsuits.

Since it’s a lot easier to identify a genetic mutation than to predict its impact, we can expect a new wave of abortions as parents seek to prevent the birth of children whose health status can’t be reliably foretold. And social stigma against disability, particularly genetic disability, gets another nudge upward.

Politicians are debating whether and how to limit insurance companies’ use of genetic data to prevent abuse and discrimination. One thing is sure: there won’t be any shortage of investors trying to follow the money as genetic tests become mass-market products.

Related stories:

• from the San Francisco Chronicle.
• from ABC News.

Medical investor Esther Dyson explains why she feels comfortable exposing her genetic and medical information on the Internet. She acknowledges that she doesn’t have deep secrets or vulnerabilities that might expose her or her relatives to stigma or loss of insurability, and wonders what transparency may mean to others who are “less fortunate.”

No matter, she says; the broader spread of medical and personal information on the Internet and elsewhere is “inevitable.” See her Wall Street Journal column here.