As GINA is Signed Into Law, Most Predict Great Gains, But Some See Shortcomings, Others Find a Mixed Bag
By John T. Aquino,
The Bureau of National Affairs
| 06. 05. 2008
[Quotes CGS's Marcy Darnovsky]
President Bush May 21 signed into law the Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act, which prohibits employers, health plans, and
insurers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of
genetic information. The new law was applauded by lawmakers of both
parties and by health-related groups. After the signing, however, some
individuals and organizations, while acknowledging up-front benefits,
began to suggest that, long term, the new law might lead to loss of
privacy and threaten biopharmaceutical research and intellectual
property. Others discounted those fears, predicting the industries
will be strengthened not harmed.
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), which was
introduced in Congress six times in various forms over the last 12
years and passed twice by the Senate but not by the House of
Representatives, was approved unanimously by the Senate April 24 and
on a vote of 414-1 by the House May 1 (2 LSLR 373, 5/9/08). The new
law (Pub. L. No. 110-233) aims to eliminate any fear of discrimination
by those who undergo genetic testing and thus encourage people to have
these potentially beneficial tests. The law amends the...
Related Articles
It’s been a busy couple of months in biopolitics, with developments in the US, UK, China, Japan, and implicitly on Mars. Time for a brief roundup.
• • •
Bioethics needs an update
The National Research Act is now 50 years old. It was signed into law on July 12, 1974, as a direct response to publicity about the 1932 “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” The Hastings Bioethics Forum celebrated its anniversary with an...
By Robert Resta, The DNA Exchange | 07.22.2024
Medical geneticists and genetic counselors have an often complicated and at times tense relationship with people with disabilities, their families, advocates, and scholars. Geneticists are strong advocates and supporters for all of their patients, regardless of their abilities and disabilities...
By Katherine Bourzac, Nature | 07.10.2024
Image courtesy National Human Genome Research Institute
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is supposed to encourage effective medical advances while also ensuring that patients and research subjects are protected. This dual mandate demands tricky judgment calls that are made more difficult by outside pressures of several kinds, political, judicial, and especially commercial. This April story at Bloomberg examines one deeply troubling pattern of regulatory capture:
Americans Are Paying Billions to Take Drugs That Don’t Work
Companies are increasingly...