File this under: Wanted: new conspiracy theories—all ours came true.
When DNA testing and genomic profiling was first rolling out as a mass-market product, I remember hearing people objecting to it saying things like, "I don’t want them to have my DNA".
These worries were summarily dismissed by science-supporting elites as paranoia on the part of anti-science or antisocial bumpkins.
It turns out an ounce of caution here was warranted.
And then COVID happened . . .
And now 23andMe has come full circle:
Wojcicki says that’s just not going to happen. “We’re not evil,” she says. “Our brand is being direct-to-consumer and affordable.” For the time being she’s focused on the long, painful process of drug development. She’d like to think she’s earned some trust, but she hasn’t come this far on faith.
Caution continues to be warranted by at least some elites (Macron refuses Russian COVID test), and I don't blame them--be sure to click through to the Atlantic story about the lengths to which the White House goes to protect the president's DNA.
I understand Macron and the White House taking extreme precautions in this area. I also do not think it is highly likely that anything bad would come of genetic data gathering in general. In fact I tend to be supportive of the secondary (or ulterior) uses that genetic data could provide--provided there are adequate disclosures on the front end and transparency throughout the process. Trust but verify is the right approach.
The level of trust is inversely proportional to the extent to which people's fears get realized even if they are only partially realized. In other words the level of trust is directly proportional to the degree of proven trustworthiness.
No comments:
Post a Comment