Senator Kennedy w/ Republican Senators try to prevent “Brave New World’

Senate Passes the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act today


Now that the human genome project has successfully mapped our DNA, and there more than 1000 genetic tests available today, there was the concern for genetic discrimination. Jobs could be awarded based on genetic health. Insurance could be denied based on genetic profile.

But today, 95-0, the Senate passed the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (GINA).

From the Press Release:

The bill, described by Sen. Edward Kennedy as “the first major new civil rights bill of the new century,” would bar health insurance companies from using genetic information to set premiums or determine enrollment eligibility. Similarly, employers could not use genetic information in hiring, firing or promotion decisions.

“For the first time we act to prevent discrimination before it has taken firm hold and that’s why this legislation is unique and groundbreaking,” said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who sponsored the Senate bill with Sens. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.

Meanwhile in the halls of universities would possibly disagree

By Richard Hayes

Tuesday, April 15, 2008; 1:47 PM

In an essay in Sunday’s Outlook section, Dartmouth ethics professor Ronald Green asks us to consider a neo-eugenic future of “designer babies,” with parents assembling their children quite literally from genes selected from a catalogue. Distancing himself from the compulsory, state-sponsored eugenics that darkened the first half of the last century, Green instead celebrates the advent of a libertarian, consumer-driven eugenics motivated by the free play of human desire, technology and markets. He argues that this vision of the human future is desirable and very likely inevitable.

To put it mildly: I disagree. Granted, new human genetic technologies have real potential to help prevent or cure many terrible diseases, and I support research directed towards that end. But these same technologies also have the potential for real harm. If misapplied, they would exacerbate existing inequalities and reinforce existing modes of discrimination. If more widely abused, they could undermine the foundations of civil and human rights. In the worst case, they could undermine our experience of being part of a single human community with a common human future.

Once we begin genetically modifying our children, where do we stop? If it’s acceptable to modify one gene, why not two, or 20 or 200? At what point do children become artifacts designed to someone’s specifications rather than members of a family to be nurtured?

About Renee