The Human Provenance Project Attempts to Unring the Bell
Last week I wrote about the U.K. Border Agency’s widely criticized Human Provenance pilot project (“Why the Errors of the Human Provenance Project Will Echo Beyond the U.K.’s Borders”) and suggested that “we should not be surprised to see the pilot project substantially revised, or even scrapped altogether.” I worried, though, that the damage may already have been done by contributing to a highly charged atmosphere that could add to pressure for premature regulation and public skepticism.
Today brings word, via ScienceInsider, that the Border Agency is pulling back on its plans to use DNA and isotope analysis to evaluate the nationality of asylum seekers attempting to enter the U.K. According to ScienceInsider:
In a statement released this afternoon by the Home Office, which oversees the Border Agency, the department’s Chief Scientific Advisor Paul Wiles now says such evidence will be collected for later analysis of its potential but will not currently be used for individual case decisions.
As Daniel MacArthur points out at Genetic Future, while some of the initial outrage over the Border Agency’s policy may have been overstated, “the initial policy was still grossly premature” and the “Border Agency’s decision to take a step back and consider the implications before wading into the morass of genetic ancestry testing” is a welcome development.
On the one hand, the Border Agency’s rapid course correction demonstrates that not all government agencies are deaf to public criticism and that not all misguided uses of genomic data are malevolent or require a formal regulatory or legislative response. Still, it seems unlikely that this is the last that will be heard about the Human Provenance project, and even in the rear-view mirror this was an unfortunate episode. And it seems to me that the conclusion to last week’s article is as relevant today as it was then:
The coming weeks will likely see further focus on the details of the Human Provenance pilot project, and we hope that the project is quickly brought in line with scientific realities and rendered consistent with important ethical, legal and social principles. But over the longer term we hope that in responding to this unfortunate example of genomic data usage, legislators hold in check their tendencies toward paternalism and genetic exceptionalism and that law- and policy-makers continue to advance a pragmatic and measured discussion that recognizes equally both the risks and benefits of genomic data availability and that leaves open a path for genomic research and personalized medicine to move forward.
I created a petition to: \Stop the Border Agency’s DNA testing pilot because it is not scientifically valid.\
Link to petition http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BorderAgency-DNA/
I created a petition to: “Stop the Border Agency’s DNA testing pilot because it is not scientifically valid.”
Link to petition http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BorderAgency-DNA/