Devious Defecator: Who done it

A warehouse in Atlanta, Georgia named Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services came across an issue in which an unknown employee was defecating on their floors near the food they store for retail stores. The supervisors of the warehouse proposed and used a cheek swab for genetic analysis on two employees to try to link the DNA to one of them that they believed committed the dirty crime. The DNA test came back and proved both men innocent of there accused crime. The men, upset from the jokes and accusations, sued the company. 

Federal judge, Amy Totenburg, ruled that the workers had a case and were to be awarded damages that were undecided due to the fact that there is not many cases regarding situations of the nature in this one. According to the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), "although the test did not reveal any medical information, it fell under the GINA law" which is used to protect people from genetic information that they feared could be used against them. Ultimately the judge ruled that "A genetics test is a genetic test is a genetics test". The real argument that the article provides us is, if a company requests genetic information but it provides no medical information, does it break the GINA act and infringe your rights as a human?

Personally, I believe that a company who demands any employee to submit genetics testing, is in fact, breaking the GINA act and violating a persons rights. Regardless if the test is used medically or for another genetic reason, it all involves genetics of people who are to be protected. I do also believe that the article provides us with a situation where employers and employees should know the laws regarding genetics and genetic testing. 

Fecal Analysis?Genetics Law Show No Leniency

Atlanta federal district judge, Amy Totenberg, ruled “a genetic test is a genetic test is a genetic test.”  Can’t really be any clearer than that.  In 2008, Congress passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act,(GINA) protecting people against discrimination from health insurance companies and employment.  However, in a case of two warehouse laborers in the photo above, Dennis Reynolds and Jack Lowe respectively; a genetics test was not used to unveil possible genetic disease risk factors; instead, it was used to clear their innocence in an ongoing incident at the warehouse. 

  There are enormous issues that unraveled through this odd case.  The limits of genetic testing as stated in the article could open a Pandora’s box. Once DNA was obtained although for identification reasons, could’ve been tested for a wide range of sensitive information.  GINA makes it illegal for employers to request, buy, or request genetic information with respect to the employee.  So whether or not the test was used for identification or health purposes no longer mattered.  Either reason, the resulting information obtained was through genetics testing and therefore illegal.

  According to the article published in Nature, ‘Devious Defecator’ Case Tests Genetics Law, The two laborers were suspected of leaving piles of feces around the facility.  In fear of losing their jobs, the two consented to having their mouths swabbed for DNA, and analyzed for genetic similarities to the feces.  The warehouse’s operations company, Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services, claims that the tests provided no medical information, both employees retained their jobs, and there was no discrimination suffered.  Although the genetic information obtained, did not include health information, it was obtained through genetics testing.  Judge Totenberg ruled in favor of the two labors and said that it still falls under the GINA.  This is the first case to go to trial to decide on damages on genetics discrimination not related to genetic health

   Even though Lowe and Reynolds were cleared from suspicion, the after affect of the ordeal from humiliations couldn’t have been too warming.  Many don’t realize how false accusations can affect a person emotionally and mentally.  The company could’ve invested in cameras instead of requesting genetics information.  For a fecal situation to initiate such a big ordeal, the company could’ve invested in a more productive issue instead of facing a 2.25 million dollar verdict.  But in doing so, has led to questioning the limits of how far and what are the boundaries before one violates federal law.  Genetics is still such a new study and not many legal guidelines are in place.  It is still a growing field that needs more information to train and educate those unfamiliar with it. 

Insurance Companies Create Fear For Genetic Test-takers and Potential Discrimination

     Even though GINA (The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act) banned the use of employers and health insurance companies of getting hold of genetic information from employees and people with insurance. Genetic information is now affordable being only about $1000 per test compared to close to one million dollars a decade ago. However, the huge loop-hole in GINA is that it does not prevent life, disability, and long-term care insurance. For example, on April 7, 2014, nytimes.com posted an article (written by Kira Peikoff) about a case of 33 year old Brian S. who denies a genetic test because he has a 50% chance of receiving CADASIL (a genetic disorder that leads to stroke). Since he wants to apply for life and long-term insurance that GINA does not account for, he decided not to get genetically tested. Thus, many people like Brian S. feared the increased premiums or denied coverage from these insurance companies.

    Dr. Klitzman, the director of Bioethics from Colombia shares his thoughts by stating that. "Someone may not know exactly why they were turned down may not go public because then they 'd be letting everyone know they have X mutation". He also did a study that revealed 4.5% of 220 internists at two medical centers have hidden and/or disguised genetic information. 

    Insurance companies state that withholding this genetic information would mean that the consumers are guilty of omission. In other words, insurance applicants who want genetic testing will be forced to give up their test results. Brian S.  is in this tough position where he either has to choose life insurance or the possibility of having life-threatening CADASIL. The pressure that Brain S. feels would not only be felt by hundreds of millions of people in the USA, but billions around the world that want to apply for insurance. 

     This article was interesting to me because I have just signed up for life insurance not too long ago, and unknowingly to me, I did not even know a problem of this magnitude existed. The halt of genetic testing due to insurance companies' potential fear tactics creates more than just fear for those that know they have the possibility of lethal genetic disorders. It creates the fear that insurance companies will not know how to properly change rates due to the genes that someone was born with. People might just boycott insurance companies and in doing so will bring economic collapse. Only time will tell. 

Original Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/science/fearing-punishment-for-bad-genes.html?_r=0

Supporting Article: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/01/17/169634045/some-types-of-insurance-can-discriminate-based-on-genes

Genomics Is Mired In Misunderstanding

"The cost of genome sequencing has fallen drastically", says George Church.  So the question is why are so many people not opting to have any genetic secrets revealed? 

    They have come to the conclusion that the reason people haven't obtained their genome sequence is because there is a failure to communicate the progress to the public.  George Church was in charge of a team registered to compete for US$10-million Archon Genomics X Prize.  It got canceled in August but it highlighted many problems and misunderstandings in genomics.

    The first problem or misunderstanding is that people think genomics is expensive.  The costs have dropped drastically from $3 billion to $1,000 in 2006.  People feel that the genome sequencing should be free due to insurance or the government, but that $1,000 for the cost can be easily made up over a lifetime instead of the costs of ending up in a hospital and having diagnostics.  Along with the costs people probably think that genomics is inaccurate.  When the X Prize Foundation announced the cancellation in August, they claimed, "no company is sequencing whole genomes to the accuracy the contest required".  However the accuracy has improved from 350 kilobases to 2,463 kilobases and the point errors have improved from 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 10 million, which are beyond the X Prize goals.  

     Since 1991, predictive gene tests have risen from 2 to 3,000.  Even the most complex traits are composed of simpler components that can be identified and applied to an individual that isn't classified as at risk, such as height and diabetes.  Even if the the genetic conditions that are identified have no cure, the results are still useful.  In Ashkenazi communities, they get genetic screening done to make lists of suitable marital partners early in life so to avoid those offspring developing Tay-Sachs disease and dozens of other similar diseases.  We can't restrict genomics to only individuals with ethnic or family risks because we are all at risk.  A sufficient reason to get genomes checked is the possibility to find markers for a treatable disease.  
    
     Many critics say that genomics is harmful, however the "US Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) prevents genetics-based discrimination in health insurance and employment".  The question being asked is if the overall benefits outweigh the risks? George Church believes that we need the X Prize more than ever.  I thought this article was very interesting because people have always said how much sequencing of genomes are yet though still slightly high in cost, not ridiculously now and it does seem like it would benefit to check for makers of treatable diseases.

http://ezproxy.stockton.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.stockton.edu:2048/docview/1439021031?accountid=29054
lhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409860a0.html