AFFIRMATIVE — EMPLOYMENT — GENETIC SCREENING — SOLVENCY 299

NEED STRICT CONTROLS TO PROTECT WORKERS

WE NEED CONTROLS ON EMPLOYMENT GENETIC SCREENING TO AVOID INJUSTICE

Stephen Overell, THE DAILY TELEGRAPH (LONDON), February 4, 1999, SECTION: Pg. 71 TITLE: Business File: Experts agree it's time to stick the gene genie back into the bottle // acs-EE2001

David Ashton, medical director of BMI Healthcare, a private sector health provider that also does non-genetic screening programmes for employers, is a strong believer in the case for regulation to guard against "genetic discrimination".

He says: "I do not think possessing genetic information on staff is useful to employers, as it is the interaction of genetic, environmental and lifestyle factors which give rise to the disease."

WE WILL NEED GOVERNMENT CONTROLS ON WORKPLACE GENETIC SCREENING

Stephen Overell, THE DAILY TELEGRAPH (LONDON), February 4, 1999, SECTION: Pg. 71 TITLE: Business File: Experts agree it's time to stick the gene genie back into the bottle // acs-EE2001

Sir Colin Campbell, a legal philosopher who previously chaired the Government's inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology, is so concerned about the potential of the science that he believes regulation will soon be required.

He says: "I am beginning to think that we do need some committee with the power to stop things happening.

"What must not happen is that employers make the taking of a genetic test a condition of employment, and are then unconstrained in the use of that information. It is not just one person's DNA in question, it is whole families."

PROTECTION AGAINST GENETIC DISCRIMINATION NECESSITATES GOVERNMENT ACTION THE KANSAS CITY STAR , February 29, 2000, SECTION: OPINION; Pg. B6, TITLE: Genetic privacy must be protected // acs-EE2001

The new genetic era we are entering is full of great promise but also insidious threats. It is almost impossible to protect individuals against these threats without a knowledgeable government that is willing to help set the right rules. Congress should move quickly to protect genetic privacy for private employees as the president has done for federal workers.

DNA TESTING MUST HAVE STRICT CONTROLS IN ORDER FOR IT TO NOT GET OUT OF CONTROL

Angus J. Dodson, Winter, 2000; Colorado Law Review, "DNA "LINE-UPS" BASED ON A REASONABLE SUSPICION STANDARD," EE2001-hxm lxnx

This comment argues that, given the importance of DNA evidence, there are circumstances in which compulsory sampling of DNA is appropriate even absent probable cause. However, the invasive nature of sampling, the high respect for bodily integrity accorded by United States law, and the possibility that evidence provided by DNA could be abused mandates strict controls on the use of such investigative techniques.

DEFINITION OF GENETIC INFORMATION MUST BE BROAD TO PROTECT AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

Wendy Wagenheim, legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, The Detroit News January 27, 2000, SECTION: Opinion; Pg. Pg. A13 TITLE: Michiganians need strong genetic privacy // acs-EE2001

Yet, for truly effective privacy protection to exist, it is essential that legislation be enacted with a definition of genetic information broad enough to include all sources of information from which an employer or insurer might learn about an employee, policy holder or applicant's genetic condition. The most common ways by which an employer or insurer learns that someone is at risk for a genetic illness -- that other family members have contracted a disease or that the person has requested genetic counseling -- are not protected when definitions focus solely on testing.