Show 0 1 4A Standard-Examin- er Saturday August 29 1 998 OUR VIEW V Go slow on legislation regarding DNA tests - r be used by the unscrupulous to deny insurance benefits or to discriminate in the workplace DNA testing could advances in have been a Scientific for years Prison inmates have been conviccleared of years-ol- d tions based on new test results women have been able to learn whether they are predisposed to breast cancer and paternity can be established in cases of babies switched in hospital pediatric wards But privacy watchdogs fear that just as genetic testing and accompanying research may enable our ability to cure dread disease and provide a wealth of helpful information it may also be used for less noble purposes: denying insurance and employment The Utah Legislature is currently debating a bill that would provide a framework for controlling access to DNA tests but from the early rounds of the discussion it appears lawmakers may be contemplating some drastic steps Most notably the proposed Genetic Testing Privacy Act may allow a life insurance company to ask a policy holder - or someone seeking insurance coverage - whether that individual has had genetic testing and if so require disclosure of the results Granted the Legislature is not in session and will not be until January' 1999 But it’s clear that the questions being raised in interim committee meetings are grave indeed Consider this provision in the bill: It would be illegal for genetic labs or other repositories who collect genetic information to release it without the written consent of the individual being tested That sounds fine until you realize that most consent or release forms do not mention privacy or ownership of genetic material According to a University of Iowa report a January 1997 study by Robert F Weir found no consent n sim mvm forms mentioned third-part- y school insurer etc - access to DNA samples or test results Weir’s study rightly pointed out that a proper consent form would address among other - employer hi n Hu jii — miJ a DNA SPECIMAN — TO FROM PRESIDENT rrr— — things: Will DNA and information about it belong to the in- dividual being tested? To whom will the information be distributed? Will the tested individual be able to withdraw their consent? How' long will the DNA sample and information about it be kept? If important information about the individual’s future health derived from genetic testing is discovered will they be notified? And will other scientists conduct research on the samples? Any comprehensive bill addressing DNA test privacy must address these questions Furthermore allowing life insurers special access to the results of DNA tests seems unnecessary Insurance companies say they want to prohibit people who may discover by way of DNA testing they have a high probability of contracting a disease from buying large amounts of life insurance and thereby damaging the health of the insurer’s business It seems to us that most men and women if not all buy life insurance based on what it would take to adequately care for their loved ones if the policyholders were to die Such h DNA schemes would be highly unlikely We urge the Legislature to move cautiously on this road to defining DNA privacy and allowing special exemptions for specific business interests It’s a large complex issue and the debate has only begun ' WUNSlIBTOWTW OiGErXL THEBREMSIWP TOHMSUBSEET TDFIXKNOS- E- ng 5 4 get-ric- 4 ANOTHER VIEW wPHhueefcwS? Electronic exploitation I f The government can’t force Internet sites to adopt privacy rules but it can keep them from lying about their standards I Federal Trade recently a settlement with a Web site called GeoCi-'tie- s which the commission charged has been misleading its 2 million clients about the use to which it had put their personal information Though GeoCities agreed to post a new statement about its priva V The ptiuiiii i 1 KT cy policies and to conform to toroocwGiMsonie B5ACH guidelines the federal government and other groups are trying to establish GeoCities the government said misled customers leading them to believe their personal information would be released to commercial groups only with their permission - The Washington ittraacwrn® rbtuwnsswwns TH£1R Etofc IMSMYlUBfoS!) J 4 Post L ji k il |