On DNA, dental floss and the law

Last week saw the release of a new report on the protection of genetic information, from the UK's genetic watchdog, the Human Genetics Commission (HGC). It coincided with news of a millionaire film producer embroiled in a paternity dispute, following a secret DNA test carried out on dental floss stolen from his dustbin. The celebrity angle ensured plenty of media coverage for the report, which includes a recommendation that taking DNA samples without consent should be made a criminal offence. But the issues surrounding genetic privacy extend way beyond paternity testing, and so does the HGC's report.

Most of us consider medical information to be private, and genetic information is no exception, whether it is obtained through DNA testing or inferred from family history. With the possible exception of Dr Craig Venter, who recently revealed that the human genome sequence published by his company, Celera Genomics, was his own, most people would prefer to choose who they share the details of their DNA with.

The HGC is calling for measures to prevent employers and insurers using genetic information from discriminating against people. It is also calling for independent bodies to oversee medical research databases, and for new legislation to prevent police access to such DNA collections.

With these recommendations, the HGC is hoping to balance the need for genetic privacy with the need for continued research into the effect of our genes on our health. If scientists are to identify the genes involved in common illnesses such as heart disease, then they will need to examine DNA samples from large numbers of people. The safeguards suggested by the HGC should ensure that such knowledge benefits everyone's health without compromising the privacy of those involved in such studies.