An article by Lori Andrew in this week’s Parade magazine[1] discusses the science and ethics of DNA testing on historic or popular figures. Scientists have already performed DNA testing on a number of famous deceased persons, such as Albert Einstein (potential genetic predisposition to aneurysm), Beethoven (possible lead poisoning), Francesco Medici (arsenic, rather than malaria, was the likely cause of death), and Thomas Jefferson (paternity of a child of one of his slaves).
Proposed new testing includes Abraham Lincoln’s blood, looking for Marfan syndrome, and the body of what is allegedly Billy the Kid. There is also a cottage industry of selling celebrity locks of hair and other artifacts (gum chewed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, a pumice stone used by Britney Spears). The collection of locks of hair has long been a tradition among some collectors, but the other artifacts have been disallowed by Ebay, as part of their ban on the trade of body parts[2].
Regarding still-living celebrities and popular figures, it seems to me to be a direct invasion of privacy to test discarded items for DNA, as these could show genetic mutations that could affect insurance or the celebrity’s standing, or they could demonstrate illicit drug use. This one seems like an easy call to make for most reasonable human beings, especially if they consider being in that position themselves .
However, regarding long-dead historical figures, should there be a statute of limitations, after which it’s okay to perform genetic testing? Should it only be in cases where there is a legitimate scientific inquiry? But what constitutes ‘legitimate’? And what if descendants are unhappy with the perceived invasion of privacy? Can you invade the privacy of someone long dead? And what about grave-robbing and testing of mummies and other remnants of long-dead cultures? Is it okay if no one complains and not okay if descendants are uncomfortable with the perceived desecration of the remains? When does scientific inquiry and curiosity trump individual or cultural concerns, and does the passage of time shift this continuum?
2 comments:
If the descendents are confortable with testing, then it should be done provided the reason justifies the cost.
I'm not certain of the exact details of the Thomas Jefferson case. What was the purpose of the testing? To prove that he raped a slave or father illegitimate child? While I think those factors should certainly play into an upcoming election (well, the rape should), I don't think either action matters at this point in time. We certainly cannot impeach Thomas Jefferson for committing a crime, nor can we prosecute him. He was an important man in history, which will not be changed by a "conviction" of rape or adultery. In this case, I don't think the reason justifies the cost. However, if an individual was denied his or her rightful inheritance because he or she cannot prove parentage, then the testing may be worth the cost.
While I agree the descendents do need to be comfortable with the testing, do we really know of anyone who can prove direct parentage of many famous deceased individuals? Even if the descendents can prove their parentage, they are so far disconnected that they certainly cannot make a decision based on the deceased wishes. I agree that looking for a potential genetic mutation could injury the reputation of the living person, but this distance between the deceased and living is so large that the public will most likely not be able to make the connection without the living indivual expressing such information.
The idea of DNA testing from cells off of a pumice stone from Britney Spears, to me, is a obvious violation of privacy and HIPPA.
Similar to this, on 60 Minutes last night there was a report on DNA testing companies for people exploring their heritage, namely the African American community. I think its great that African Americans can use this to find their history that goes beyond slavery. The DNA testing companies trace lineage back to specific tribes in specific African countries. The woman who was the focus of the piece was thrilled to discover that she was from Sierra Leone. However, 60 Minutes tested her DNA through several other of these companies, all of which came back with different lineages. I wonder if these companies are just taking advantage of African Americans who want to know their lineage prior to slave trade?
Post a Comment