Perils of DNA Surveillance - Jeffrey Rosen

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2008/11/02/Battle_of_Ideas_Whose_Data_Is_it_Anyway

Law professor Jeffrey Rosen explains the dangers of indexing genetic records and making them available electronically to law enforcement. Rosen believes the practice may lead to genetic surveillance and "suspicion-less searches" based on familial DNA, holding "children responsible for the sins of their fathers."

-----

Traditionally, we trust doctors with confidential information about our health in the knowledge that it’s in our own interests. Similarly, few patients object to the idea that such information may be used in some form for medical research. But what happens when this process is subject to scrutiny?

Clinical scientists and epidemiologists argue that the requirements being placed upon them are disproportionate to the use they are making of either datasets or tissues samples and, besides, their work is in the public interest.

At the heart of the debate lie key questions over trust and consent and how these can best be resolved. To complicate things, it is no longer just medical researchers, but also public health bureaucrats who are keen to have access to our data.

Are government researchers abusing patients' trust? Can and should a distinction be made between the use of data for research and public health promotion purposes, or do the benefits of data-sharing outweigh its disadvantages? - Institute of Ideas

Jeffrey Rosen is a professor of law at George Washington University and the legal affairs editor of The New Republic. A widely read legal commentator, his most recent book is The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries that Defined America, a companion book to the PBS series on the Supreme Court. He is also the author of The Most Democratic Branch, The Naked Crowd, and The Unwanted Gaze. A graduate of Harvard College, Oxford University, and Yale Law School, he has been a staff writer for The New Yorker magazine, and his essays and commentaries have appeared in the New York Times Magazine and The Atlantic, as well as on National Public Radio.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• genetics
• genetic
• research
• privacy
• private
• information
• state
• government
• police
• civil
• rights
• law
• illegal
• search
• minority
• report
• eugenics
• fora.tv
• foratv
• fora
• tv

[isegoria1]

"but if dad was an alcoholic then the likelihood of his son being one is rather high."

You could not possibly be more wrong. Genetics dictate no part of volition. To date there are zero studies that support your position.

Alcoholism is an act of volition.

Care to prove your glittering generality?

[isegoria1]

Little Jeffrey has no idea what the hell he is talking about - Genetic features say absolutely nothing about volition. This guy is intentionally intellectually dishonest. What does he think this is going to be Gattica? I think Jeffery has watched to much SCIFI channel.

His entire argument is a big fat red herring. He sounds like a conspiracy nut because he is one.

Alcoholism and the sort are acts of volition.

Damn fear mongers! I would expect better from ForaTV

[eldoradoreefgold]

THE BUSH FAMILY IN THE PERSON OF PRESCOTT BUSH PLANNED TO ASSASSINATE FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT!WE LET HIM SKATE!GEORGE H.W. BUSH AIDED & HELPED THE BAY OF PIGS INVASION AND PROBABLLY SIDEd WITH MAFIA/C.I.A.& ANTI-CASTRO CUBANS IN THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY!!THE DEATH OF JOHN F. KENNEDY JUNIOR IS JUST TOO COINCIDENTAL TO GENETIC PROPENSITY ALREADY REEKS OF THE DISTINCT POSSIBILITIES!WHY WASN'T PRESCOTT BUSH shot FOR TREASONOUS ACTS THAT WOULD HAVE ENEDED THE FAMILIES LINE?

[isegoria1]

Simple minded? You really have stepped knee deep in stupid assumptions haven't you. You missed my point completely and if you can not read it or comprehend it at this point I feel no desire to reiterate this for you.

BTW - social networks are the NSA playground. And you think I am not paying attention?

[CognosSquare]

We always profile as humans. We would be dumb not to.

If we see a dirty pitbull with half an ear sitting on the pavement, we profile and walk around the dog eventhough we dont know if this dog is aggressive at all.

Would we do the same for a clean labrador? Not really, that would be silly.

You would teach your 4 year old daughter to do the same.

Why cant we admit this? Why must we say that everyone is exactly the same?

That the Eskimos win as many marathons as the Kenyans etc. Really?

[CognosSquare]

You are paranoid. People were freaked out about having to give up fingerprints back in the 60ies. "The man" were trying to control people AND people would get framed by unscrupulous people.

Turned out... not so much.

It helped catch a few rapists and murderers though.

[javster420]

Don't be so simple minded. This technology in the wrong hands with no legal restriction or legislation can turn your babies into criminals before they're old enough to talk. Now if you don't think that some mega maniacal person would jump at the chance to have this power, then you're living in a dream land. Scary shit. And it'll only get easier, cheaper and more commonplace. NOT GOOD!

[PlateauEast]

sure i didn't mean to imply that you were absolutely wrong. i know people from both sides of the aisle.

[n8iveidiot13]

yes i agree with that entirely... its like if they say... dont worry we will only do genetic survillence on only 17% of black people... b ut actually do 67% which would be REALLY scary because you cant do nothing about it once thye got you on surveillence...

[WhoRonPaul]

genetic surveillance is absolutely a scary idea