Privacy
Genetic Bill of Rights Proposed in Massachusetts
On January 21, 2011, the Massachusetts Genetic Bill of Rights (MA GBR) (pdf) was introduced before the Massachusetts state legislature. At its core, the proposed legislation establishes property and privacy rights for genetic information and genetic material, while providing protections designed to shield individuals from genetic profiling and other misuses of genetic information.
Taken as a whole, the legislation, if enacted, would confer upon Massachusetts residents a significantly expanded set of genetic rights than exist under current federal law. Below we examine several of the bill’s most noteworthy proposals.
The MA GBR addresses perceived gaps and limitations in the coverage provided by major federal statutes, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by seeking to place genetic information on a par with medical records.
The MA GBR’s provisions set basic limitations on the use, including the commercial use, of personal genetic information that would go above and beyond the user agreements and privacy policies employed by some commercial services. For example, the MA GBR prohibits the use of genetic information for marketing or determining credit worthiness. With the proliferation of genetic information, particularly in consumer or commercial contexts, such basic limitations would help address concerns about the lack of mandatory restrictions regarding the sale, transfer or other use of personal genetic data.
The Personal Property Theory of Personal Genomes. But the MA GBR goes much further than mere consumer protection reforms. Section 1 of the proposed legislation explicitly declares genetic information to be “the exclusive property of the individual from whom the information is obtained.” (emphasis added)
Recent Developments in Forensic DNA
The use of DNA in forensics continues to expand. Last year, James Cass reviewed the current system of forensic DNA profiling in the U.S., including CODIS (the Combined DNA Index System, the FBI’s integrated DNA profiling program), the controversial practice of partial/familial searching, and calls from President Obama and others to collect DNA profiles for all Americans in a national database. He posted follow-up pieces focused on advance DNA collection under Katie’s Law, the growing backlog of DNA samples, and familial DNA database searching, which gained support after it facilitated the arrest of the elusive serial killer in California known as the Grim Sleeper.
A number of newer developments have caught our attention.
MLB Takes Another Swing at Complying with GINA
In 2008 Congress passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). Although GINA is arguably “the first civil rights bill of the 21st century,” we have consistently reminded Genomics Law Report readers that passing GINA into law was only the first step.
As is the case with any piece of new legislation, even after a law is passed, considerable work remains to implement that law in practice. GINA is no different. Congress provided a basic framework designed to eliminate genetic discrimination, but many of the details of the law were left to regulatory agencies.
Two and a half years after GINA’s passage, the first part of that process is still underway. Last month the EEOC issued final rules and regulations implementing Title II of Gina, which applies to employers. (Final regulations for Title I of GINA, which applies to health insurers, have yet to be issued.) With the long-awaited arrival of the EEOC’s final regulations, the next step is to begin to apply those regulations.
MLB’s Genetic Testing Program. In July of 2009 The New York Times reported that Major League Baseball (MLB) had begun using genetic testing to verify the age and identity of Latin American baseball prospects. We analyzed MLB’s genetic testing program and the potential legal concerns raised by GINA in a pair of posts: “MLB Meets GINA” and “MLB’s Genetic Testing Program at the Plate Again.”
Surreptitious Genetic Testing: WikiLeaks Highlights Gap in Genetic Privacy Law
The top news story the past two weeks: the release of hundreds of thousands of confidential American diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks. While dissecting diplomatic maneuvering is not a traditional area of expertise for the Genomics Law Report, a pair of cables did catch our eye.
The first is primarily a curiosity: the allegation that Chinese authorities are spying on deCode Genetics, Iceland’s most prominent genetic research company and provider of the direct-to-consumer genetic testing service, deCODEme. Nobody seems to know exactly what China is looking to gain by clandestinely exploring Iceland’s genetic genealogy. You are welcome to speculate in the comments.
The second raises broader issues: the revelation that the State Department’s ongoing human intelligence collection directives include requests for “biometric information” on key world leaders, including United Nations arms inspectors, the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO) and key advisors and aides to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. A separate cable detailing intelligence collection priorities in Africa’s Great Lakes region clarifies that “biometric information” includes “health [data]…fingerprints, facial images, DNA, and iris scans.”
Not disclosed in the WikiLeaked cables: why the State Department wants the biometric data or whether any have been successfully obtained.
Surreptitious Testing: An Overview. The cables are, however, a reminder that the law surrounding the surreptitious collection and testing of biometric data, including DNA, remains extremely murky.
Germany Struggles to Find Balance in Promoting, Regulating Genetic Technologies
Last fall we reported on the passage of the Human Genetic Examination Act by the German Bundestag. We characterized the Gendiagnostikgesetz (GenDG), as the act is known in Germany, as “a clear example of what is known as ‘genetic exceptionalism’—the belief that genetic information is qualitatively different from other forms of personal or medical information—staking out a position near the paternalistic end of genetic regulation.”
The GenDG (pdf) took effect early this year and, until recently, little news of its impact on German law, policy or business has made its way across the Atlantic. Last week, however, several prestigious German scientific academies released a report entitled “Predictive Genetic Diagnostics as an Instrument of Disease Prevention.” The “Academy Group,” as the report’s authors refer to themselves, consists of the Leopoldina, the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities and the German Academy of Science and Engineering Acatech. Astoundingly, according to a recent editorial in the journal Nature, the report is the first from the group in its 350 year existence.
Digging Deeper into the EEOC’s Final GINA Regulations
As we wrote yesterday, last week the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued definitive rules and regulations (pdf) with respect to Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). In our previous post we offered a brief overview of the new regulations, as well as some preliminary suggestions for employers just now coming to grips with GINA.
We also promised to take a closer look in today’s post at several substantive features of the EEOC’s new regulations.
Defining the Terms. The EEOC, the government agency generally responsible for enforcing federal employment nondiscrimination laws, was the logical choice to promulgate regulations under GINA’s Title II, which governs the use of genetic information by employers and similar entities. But not all of GINA’s statutory provisions were within the EEOC’s area of expertise.
Update: EEOC Issues Final Genetic Nondiscrimination Rules
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued its final rules and regulations implementing the employment provisions of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). Signed into law in 2008, GINA took effect in two stages in 2009, with Title I (which applies to health insurers and plans) effective in May and Title II (which applies to employers) effective in November.
When GINA was passed, Congress instructed the EEOC to issue final rules and regulations no later than May of 2009 describing how the agency intends to interpret and enforce the legislation. Although the EEOC missed that deadline by a full 18 months, the Commission did issue definitive rules and regulations (pdf) for Title II of GINA last week. (In its defense, the departments responsible for the Title I – Labor, Health and Human Services and the Treasury – have yet to issue final regulations of their own.) The regulations take effect January 10, 2011.
Reintroducing GINA. Last November, we reported that Title II of GINA had joined ranks with the other federal antidiscrimination laws (the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), to name a few), to provide federal protection against workplace discrimination, in this case on the basis of genetic information. Title II of GINA prohibits the use of genetic information in the employment context, and also restricts employers from acquiring or disclosing genetic information.
The Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act Returns to Congress
Meggan Bushee is a student at the Wake Forest University School of Law.
This past May, Congressman Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) re-introduced a personalized medicine bill to the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill was originally introduced in 2006 by then-Senator from Illinois Barack Obama. While HR 5440, also known as the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2010 (GPMA 2010), has retained the name of the bill originally introduced by Senator Obama, its approach to the regulation of personalized medicine has taken a new direction.
GPMA 2010 is the fourth version of the GPMA since the original bill of 2006, and includes the most ambitious initiatives of all of its predecessors. Why has the GPMA re-surfaced after three prior versions failed to make it out of committee? According to Representative Kennedy, the bill has been re-introduced in response to increased public awareness and use of genomic tests. At present, GPMA 2010 is before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. This is the same committee that recently conducted high-profile hearings to review the current state of the direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing registry.
“From Gulf Oil to Snake Oil”: Congress Takes Aim at DTC Genetic Testing
It has been a busy week in Washington for direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing companies. Following public FDA meetings and a new round of FDA device notification letters earlier in the week, representatives from three major DTC genetic testing companies (23andMe, Navigenics and Pathway Genomics) were hauled in front of Congress today to defend their companies, their industry and the practice of DTC genetic testing.
The hearing on “Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing and the Consequences to Public Health” was conducted by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. The meeting was chaired by Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan. Materials from the hearing, including a briefing memorandum, opening statements from Stupak and Representative Henry Waxman of California and witness testimony are available on the Committee’s website. Also available are materials from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation into DTC genetic tests. These materials include the report the GAO submitted to Congress – “Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests: Misleading Test Results Are Further Complicated by Deceptive Marketing and Other Questionable Practices” (pdf) – as well as a YouTube video featuring excerpts from undercover phone calls made by the GAO to DTC companies as part of their investigation (both of which are discussed in detail below).
Grim Sleeper Awakens Attention to Familial Searching of DNA Databases
Last week, the Los Angeles Police Department announced that it had captured a man suspected of being the “Grim Sleeper”: a serial killer linked with at least 10 murders over 25 years.1 The case marks the first time in the United States that a DNA search technique known as familial searching has led to an arrest in a homicide case.
As we’ve previously discussed, a partial match between two DNA profiles may indicate that the donors of the corresponding samples may be related. In familial searching, a database is searched for the purpose of identifying partial, rather than exact, matches against the sample of unknown origin. Those partial matches are then used as investigatory leads.
Though familial searching has been used with some success in other countries, few states openly endorse its practice. Those states that permit the use of partial matches at all generally prohibit the intentional search for those matches, requiring instead that they be discovered inadvertently. California began using familial searching in 2008 in a first attempt to identify the Grim Sleeper. At the time, the failure to produce a suspect was seen as a strike against the technique: if familial searching could implicate privacy concerns and subject innocent individuals to excessive genetic surveillance, it certainly could not be justified without being able to point to positive results.2 Since then, one DNA profile of particular interest was added to California’s database: that belonging to the son of the man now identified as the Grim Sleeper.
