Ahmed: Genetic advances pose ethical problems

We all have an identity — that signature that makes us different. What if what we call our… We all have an identity — that signature that makes us different. What if what we call our identity could be reduced to a four-letter alphabet? I’m talking about genomes.

Recently, as reported by The Washington Post, it’s become possible to decode someone’s genome in just one day for $1,000. That means an average person, with a bit of financial shifting, could probably afford to get it done.

This is a relatively recent development. To put the advancement into perspective, the service would have cost $100 million in 2001, and it certainly wouldn’t be completed in one day, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute, a part of the National Institutes of Health.

If we are to extrapolate from the steady price drop over the past decade, it’s not hard to imagine a time in which sequencing one’s genome could cost $100. Soon, discovering l3 billion base pairs — the basic units of your DNA — could cost as much as an iPod.

Genomics is ringing the front doorbell, and we must invite it in. And with that, we must address the relevant issues. Possessing your entire mapped genome has many implications, both promising and foreboding.

Consider the current use of genetics in medicine. If a person suspects an inheritable disease — say breast cancer — she visits a genetic counselor. The counselor will test her genome for only a handful of genes. The test can cost anywhere from several hundred to several thousand dollars, according to the National Cancer Institute. Humans have about 20,000 genes, mutations in any of which have the potential to cause disease.

Thus, imagine what a routine physical examination such as your annual checkup could become. If your doctor had your entire genome at hand — already assessed against a bank of known disease-causing variations — you could get a prospectus on your entire life. You have the potential to know diseases you will or might have in advance, although many diseases manifest themselves later in life. This could certainly help people plan their lives appropriately. Do you want to start a family? Buy a house mortgaged for 30 years? This is of course assuming you want to take the red pill.

There are always two sides to the coin. Genetic information is extremely sensitive. For one, insurance companies could argue that they should be granted access to your genome. They insure you and might claim that remaining oblivious to your body’s future is a poor investment strategy. If they could assess your genes, it is possible your premiums would rise. Until recently, this was never a problem, likely because the state of technology made the question irrelevant. But the technology is now here to stay.

There has already been legislation in relation to this issue. In 2008, Congress enacted the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act to prohibit the use of genetic information in health insurance and employment. It unanimously passed in the Senate, but not in the House, where one congressman of 415 voted against it. Knowing his voting tendencies, when I saw that there was a lone opponent, I knew who the dissenter must be: U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). The GOP candidate had his reasons, as always. But his usual plea for such regulations to be determined at the state level and for the federal government to avoid enacting blanket legislation brings to surface another issue.

Sure, such information could be used to discriminate and raise premiums. However, a person with excellent genetics might want a discount from his insurer. He might want to flaunt his genome and get his genes’ worth. Genes go both ways.

Again, this raises another issue. John Rawls, an American philosopher considered by many to be the most important political philosopher of the 20th century, developed a social contract theory. According to Rawls, the best way to approach such an issue would be to imagine a veil of ignorance. One should make such social decisions, such as whether genetics should be relevant to insurance, imagining ignorance of one’s own status in society. If you did not know whether you’d be rich or poor in a society before making its rules, you’re likely to formulate rules that would favor the most disadvantaged members.

Thus, in this case, we should make decisions concerning the use of genetics based on the assumption that we do not know what our own genetics hold for us in the future. But this is exactly the tipping point we are currently at. Fifty years ago, this theory would make more sense. However, discovering one’s genetics is easy now. We can no longer feign ignorance.

As the technology advances, genetics will continue to become a greater social issue. Genes are sometimes a ticking time-bomb, but sometimes they permit us to accomplish the most amazing feats. We already have social constructs that will surely respond to the advancing technology in how we manage our health, make future plans and more.

Before genetics were understood, the notion of identity transformed from being a concept in the realm of philosophy and theology to, most recently, one in the realm of psychology. Now identity is coming to be known as one’s genetic signature, a more physical entity. It seems we have been on a mission to reduce this concept to the fewest letters possible. Genetics is the point beyond which you cannot reduce.

I may have taken liberties to make my point. Identity does involve genetics, but it’s not all nature; it can also be nurture. Our individual experiences surely supplement our identities. The difference is that the technology to reduce experiences to a simple code has not yet arrived. It has for genetics, and we need to address its now unavoidable sociopolitical presence and consequence.

Contact Abdul at ABA24@pitt.edu