Privacy

All Eyes on Maryland v. King: Recapping the Supreme Court Oral Argument

1037193_dna_fingerprint_5Seating was in short supply to hear oral arguments before the Supreme Court in what J. Alito referred to as “the most important criminal procedural case that this court has heard in decades,” Maryland v. King. Eager spectators –including this contributor for the Genomics Law Report – lined up along the marble steps of the Supreme Court building and waited amidst biting winter temperatures in excess of four hours before being allowed inside. [I thought to myself, “if I can brave the cold for football, I can brave the cold to see our nation’s highest court in action.”] The second of two cases scheduled for the morning of February 26, 2013, oral arguments for Maryland v. King were already underway when the fortunate final spectators were ushered inside. Katherine Winfree and Michael Dreeben argued for the Petitioners (the State of Maryland) and Kannon Shanmugam argued on behalf of the Respondent (Alonzo King).

The Genomics Law Report has covered the brewing constitutional controversy of DNA fingerprinting upon arrest previously, as U.S. v. Mitchell tentatively settled the matter in the 3rd Circuit, as the 9th Circuit continued to wrestle with Haskell v. Harris, and as various state courts, including Minnesota and Colorado [pdf], faced similar questions.

Background on Maryland v. King.  Alonzo Jay King, Jr. was arrested in 2009 and charged with first- and second-degree assault. As part of his initial arrest, King submitted to DNA fingerprinting collected by law enforcement under the Maryland DNA Collection Act. More than half the states [pdf] have statutes similar to Maryland’s, and there is also a similar federal statute (the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 [pdf]). King admitted to his involvement and was ultimately convicted of second-degree assault, a misdemeanor and an offense not qualifying on its own for DNA collection upon arrest under Maryland’s law.


Read the rest of this entry »

Comments Off on All Eyes on Maryland v. King: Recapping the Supreme Court Oral Argument
Filed under Biobanking, General Interest, Genomic Policymaking, Genomics & Society, Industry News, Legal & Regulatory, Pending Litigation, Privacy

Implications of Amgen/deCODE Deal for Genetic Testing Consumers

The big biotech news of the day is the $415 million sale of deCODE Genetics to Amgen. Coverage of the deal is everywhere, including a typically excellent overview from Matthew Herper of Forbes.

We’ve written extensively about deCODE here at the Genomics Law Report over the years, including the company’s well-publicized bankruptcy and privatization two years ago. That transaction left plenty of deCODE shareholders out in the cold, and those shareholders aren’t likely to be feeling any better about things this winter.

Two years ago, questions were raised regarding how the newly private deCODE would utilize one of its most noteworthy assets: it’s database of genetic and other personal health information about Icelandic citizens. Those questions are likely to resurface now, as Amgen seeks to extract $415 million worth of a company that it bought – at least according to one of deCODE’s owners – in large part for access to deCODE’s data. Expect the usual assurances, but remember that those assurances are only as strong as the paper – and legal framework – upon which they are premised.


Read the rest of this entry »

1 Comment »
Filed under Direct-to-Consumer Services, General Interest, Genetic Testing/Screening, Genomics & Society, Industry News, International News, Privacy

mHealth on the Horizon: Federal Agencies Paint Regulatory Landscape with Broad Brushstrokes

For years, and with increasing frequency, health care and information technology companies have touted the potential of mobile medical and health applications and technologies to improve the quality and delivery of health care through the use of technology. While the future of mobile health (frequently referred to as “mHealth”) is undoubtedly filled with promise, the legal and regulatory landscape in which mHealth technologies reside is only now beginning to take shape.

As mHealth developers, funders and even users consider investing in the field, or including in particular mHealth technologies, they should keep in mind the emergent and fluid nature of the mHealth regulatory landscape. Here, we outline the likely key players and discuss several recent and projected initiatives with respect to the oversight of mHealth technologies:


Read the rest of this entry »

Comments Off on mHealth on the Horizon: Federal Agencies Paint Regulatory Landscape with Broad Brushstrokes
Filed under Genomic Policymaking, Genomics & Medicine, Industry News, Legal & Regulatory, Mobile Health, Pending Regulation, Privacy

DNA DTC: The Return of Direct to Consumer Whole Genome Sequencing

This morning, Gene By Gene, Ltd. – better known as the parent company of the popular genetic genealogy provider Family Tree DNA – formally announced a corporate reorganization that includes the debut of a new division, DNA DTC. (Apparently the news was also announced earlier this month at the Family Tree DNA Conference, although the company waited until today to launch press releases.)

The announcement from Gene By Gene is newsworthy for several reasons, including:

1. The Return of True DTC Whole Genome and Whole Exome Sequencing. According to DNA DTC, the company offers a range of products “utilizing next generation sequencing including the entire exome (at 80x coverage) and the whole genome.” The company’s website, while fairly spartan, appears to bear this out. Whole exomes ($695 at 80x coverage) and genomes ($5,495 at 30x coverage) are both listed as available products.

Now, Gene By Gene is not, as its Wikipedia page claims (as of this writing), “the first commercial company to offer whole genome sequencing tests.” Knome earned that honor more than four years ago, when it started selling whole genome sequences for $350,000; an astounding price, either low (given the cost of the first human genome was $3 billion) or high (given that, well, it was $350,000) depending on your perspective. Gene By Gene probably does represent, however, the only commercial company currently offering a whole genome sequence in a truly direct-to-consumer (DTC) manner.


Read the rest of this entry »

3 Comments »
Filed under Direct-to-Consumer Services, FDA LDT Regulation, General Interest, Genetic Testing/Screening, Genomic Sequencing, Genomics & Society, Industry News, Informed Consent, Privacy

ENCODE, CODIS, and the Urgent Need to Focus on what is Scientifically and Legally Relevant to the DNA Fingerprinting Debate

Sara Huston Katsanis, MS is an Associate in Research at the Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy at Duke University.

On September 5, 2012, a coordinated release of 30 articles in Nature, Cell, Science, Genome Research, Genome Biology and other journals published the long-awaited findings of The Encylopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) Consortium. The press coverage of ENCODE data is deafening at this point, and ENCODE’s relevance to GLR readers may not be immediately apparent.

Across the U.S., numerous groups are challenging the integration of CODIS profiles (sometimes called “DNA Fingerprints”) into the routine booking procedures upon arrest for certain crimes (depending on the state), placing genetic profiling among other standard procedures such as fingerprinting and mug shot photographs. The GLR has covered these legal challenges previously (including here, here, and here).
Read the rest of this entry »

4 Comments »
Filed under Biobanking, Bioinformatics/IT, General Interest, Genomic Policymaking, Genomics & Society, Legal & Regulatory, Pending Litigation, Privacy

The Burden of Enforcing GINA: EEOC v. Nestle Illustrates One Challenge in Pursuing Genetic Discrimination Claims

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) is a federal law making it illegal for insurers and employers to acquire and to use genetic information in certain contexts. Specifically, Title II of GINA prohibits employers with more than 15 employees, employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor-management training and apprenticeship program committees from using genetic information when making employment decisions (e.g. hiring, firing, promotions, placement, compensation, privileges, seniority, etc).

The employment discrimination provisions took effect on November 21, 2009, with an air of uncertainty, as the Final Rules implementing Title II of GINA were not issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) until a year later (See 75 Fed Reg 68912-68939 [pdf], issued November 9, 2010) and did not take effect until January 10, 2011. (See previous GLR coverage of GINA Title II here and of GINA generally here).


Read the rest of this entry »

1 Comment »
Filed under Genetic Testing/Screening, Genomics & Society, GINA, Legal & Regulatory, Pending Regulation, Privacy

Courts in Unsettled Territory turn to the Map Available: United States v. Mitchell

We recently covered the Ninth Circuit’s split decision in Haskell v. Harris,1 which found DNA Fingerprinting of arrestees pursuant to California’s Prop 69 to be constitutionally sound. We also reported the Minnesota Supreme Court findings in In re Welfare of M.L.M. and State v. Johnson, rejecting challenges of DNA Fingerprinting based on 4th Amendment and Equal Protection grounds.

An Update from Colorado. An ongoing prosecution, United States v. Fricosu,2 became the most recent constitutional challenge to DNA fingerprinting upon arrest. The defendant, Ramona Fricosu, had her DNA sampled as part of her arrest pursuant to the DNA Fingerprinting Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. §14135(a). She filed a motion challenging the constitutionality of the practice, requesting that the court order her DNA sample and CODIS profile be destroyed. Fricosu challenged the constitutionality of the practice on Fourth Amendment grounds. On February 22, 2012, Colorado District Judge Blackburn denied the motion (pdf).


Read the rest of this entry »

Comments Off on Courts in Unsettled Territory turn to the Map Available: United States v. Mitchell
Filed under Biobanking, Genetic Testing/Screening, Genomic Policymaking, Genomics & Society, Legal & Regulatory, Pending Litigation, Pending Regulation, Privacy

Ninth Circuit Issues Long-Awaited Ruling on Constitutionality of DNA Fingerprinting

Jennifer K. Wagner, J.D., Ph.D., is a solo-practicing attorney in State College, PA and a research associate at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for the Integration of Genetic Healthcare Technologies.

In December 2009 the Northern District of California upheld the constitutionality of California’s Prop 69, which authorizes DNA fingerprinting as part of the routine booking process of individuals charged with felonies. There, in Haskell v. Brown, the defendants challenged California’s Prop 69 by arguing it violated both the 4th and 14th Amendments since, respectively, DNA fingerprinting upon felony arrest was, according to defendants, an unreasonable search and a violation of informational privacy.


Read the rest of this entry »

1 Comment »
Filed under Biobanking, Bioinformatics/IT, General Interest, Genomic Policymaking, Genomics & Society, Legal & Regulatory, Pending Regulation, Privacy

Minnesota the Latest to Weigh in on DNA Fingerprinting of Arrestees

Jennifer K. Wagner, J.D., Ph.D., is a solo-practicing attorney in State College, PA and a research associate at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for the Integration of Genetic Healthcare Technologies.

There is an increasingly apparent absence of national consensus on whether the practice of collecting a DNA sample and creating a CODIS profile as part of the routine arrest booking procedures (i.e., “DNA fingerprinting”) conforms to the constitutional proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures articulated as the 4th Amendment. We mentioned this topic at the Genomics Law Report previously here, here, and here.

In July 2011, the 3rd Circuit upheld the federal DNA Fingerprinting Act of 20051 in United States v. Mitchell.2 Perhaps perceiving this ruling as a judicial green light, Pennsylvania’s General Assembly, as we recently noted, seems motivated to authorize the practice of DNA fingerprinting upon felony arrest. While the Pennsylvania Senate passed S.B. 775 and referred the matter to the House Judiciary Committee in December 2011, no apparent action has been taken on the measure since then.


Read the rest of this entry »

Comments Off on Minnesota the Latest to Weigh in on DNA Fingerprinting of Arrestees
Filed under Biobanking, Bioinformatics/IT, General Interest, Genomic Policymaking, Genomics & Society, Industry News, Legal & Regulatory, Pending Litigation, Privacy

Alabama’s “Genetic Information Privacy Act” & the Ongoing Need for Personal Genomics Leadership

Jennifer K. Wagner, J.D., Ph.D., is a solo-practicing attorney in State College, PA and a research associate at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for the Integration of Genetic Healthcare Technologies.

Thanks to technological innovation and a corresponding decline in cost, an increasing number of individuals are finding themselves with the task – or at least the opportunity – of accessing and interpreting their own genetic information. Over the past year, several state legislatures have taken notice.

Following on the heels of legislation passed or proposed in California, Vermont and Massachusetts, the Alabama House of Representatives is considering a bill by Representative Henry (pre-filed on January 23, 2012 and scheduled for first read on February 7, 2012) titled the “Genetic Information Privacy Act” (2012 AL H.B. 78). While the bill is relatively brief, its effects as written may reach far beyond those intended.

A New Bar for Informed Consent. First, the bill in its current form would require signature on separate informed consent documents to obtain, retain, or disclose genetic information. As drafted the bill would provide an exception for the insurance industry, permitting a single, integrated informed consent document if the genetic information is being obtained, retained, or disclosed “for the purpose of obtaining insurance” (Page 4, Line 25).


Read the rest of this entry »

Comments Off on Alabama’s “Genetic Information Privacy Act” & the Ongoing Need for Personal Genomics Leadership
Filed under General Interest, Genetic Testing/Screening, Genomic Policymaking, Genomics & Society, GINA, Industry News, Informed Consent, Legal & Regulatory, Pending Regulation, Privacy