Should The Government And Other Agencies Be Able To Evaluate The Dna Case Study

23andMe make a constant claim that their growing understanding of genetics is reshaping medicine. Their product uses token pieces of information from the most basic level of the human genetic sequence – which still includes a three-billion letter string of A’s, T’s, G’s and C’s (the code of DNA) that is very similar in most everyone. However, there’s an estimated 10 million different places in the genome where a single letter in the sequence can be different from one person to the next. Those particular letter variations are known as SNPs, or single nucleotide polymorphisms, and they form the basis for the genotyping that 23andMe offers and analyzes due to the fact that there are thousands of SNPs are scattered across 23 pairs of chromosomes. The technology that 23andMe is referred to as a BeadChip, which is not a microprocessor, but a miniaturized genetics lab, according to their description on their website for “Genotyping Technology”. The BeadChip is a small glass slide with millions on tiny beads on it’s surface, where each bead has probes with complementary DNA for sites in your own personal genome where SNPs of interest are located. After a person’s DNA is chopped into pieces and washed over the chip, different fragment sticks await their complementary cells. Though a little complicated, scientifically, 23andMe claims it is a very simple and reliable method in practice! The technology that is used is Illumina HumanOmniExpress-24 format chip, which then

The Fourth Amendment gives United States citizens the right of protection from unlawful searches and seizures. Recently, in the case Maryland v. King the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure of DNA during the booking process is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. The ruling by the Supreme Court has to be further evaluated and questioned as it raises questions as to what is covered under the Fourth Amendment and if a person is allowed that right while in custody. Vikram Iyengar in his law review article ‘Maryland v. King: The case for uniform, nationwide DNA collection and DNA database laws in the United States’ will allow a closer look into how this ruling may cause a conflict with state laws. The ruling in this case will spur many

The discovery of DNA consisted of one person, and three teams, and many people felt the credit was given unfairly, which caused controversy to who should've really deserved credit. Crick, and Watson were given credit, but a major part of their success came from the others. Wilkins created the camera that would've later revealed the shape of DNA, and got credit, which he should, but other people felt his partner Franklin should've gotten credit, however, without Wilkins she would've never got far. Pauling didn't do much, and a man named Chargaff discovered the bases of DNA, which contributed to Crick, and Watson's achievement. I believe Wilkins, and Chargaff deserved credit since Wilkins created the camera that would've revealed the structure

How would you feel about a DNA database having record of every man, woman and child in the United States? Many questions are raised on whether it is ethical to have, safe and beneficial. A national DNA database could help solve crimes, but it also allows for thousands of innocent people to be at risk. Many argue against having a DNA database and many are for a database. I am going to argue against having a national DNA database because it has potential of being hacked, it is a violation of individual rights and DNA is not 100% accurate.

Consumers have the right to learn and obtain information about their personal genome and its potential implications in future health outcomes. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) actions was protecting the rights of the consumer when they blocked 23andMe’s consumer advertising campaign in 2013. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies are poorly regulated. There is no current industry standard that consumers can point to when it comes to DTC genetic testing. Therefore, DTC services need more industry standardization and scrutiny on their methods and techniques before the general public can fully support them as valid entities for genetic information. This incident isn’t the first time that the federal government intervened in

In result, we as the human race will suffer by not being able to advance our medical research. Crichton also mentions that all the other countries out there do not allow for anyone to patent genes and they have some of the best gene testing anyone can have.Which means Dr.’s can detect deadly diseases earlier and even prevent them from happening,because they now know what causes the mutation that causes the disease. Because when different labs can do “more testing more mutations can be discovered which lead to higher-quality tests.”(442). Where most economists approve of the gene patenting because they just see the “dollar signs” that they can put on the testing,the owners can basically charge whatever they want for the testing, and no one can make a similar test because they own that testing. To me its all bout the money for them, the more expensive they can make it the better for them it just means more money. Calfee does support the patenting of genes and the prices for them he thinks it's a “ pricing power as a tool to foster innovations.”(444).

DNA sequencing is a method for determining the precise order of nucleotides present in a given DNA molecule [1]. The Sanger and Gilbert methods of sequencing DNA are referred to as first-generation sequencing because they were the first to be developed. The Sanger sequencing, also known as the chain terminating method, developed in 1975 by Edward Sanger, was considered the gold standard for nucleic acid sequencing for two and a half decades (Sanger et al., 1977). The Human Genome Project was accomplished with first-generation sequencing in 2003, known as Sanger sequencing. The Human Genome Project (HGP) was an international cooperative venture established to sequence the 3 billion base pair (~25,000 genes) in the human genome.

According to Dr. William E. Evans, St. Jude director and CEO, “It has been interesting to see how much technology has changed in the last decade. To see things like how technology has accelerated science, to change the scale of research that St. Jude can do, and to accelerated the pace at which St. Jude can understand what causes childhood cancer and how to better treat it. It’s hard to imagine what things are going to be like in 10 years, because everything is moving so quickly” (St. Jude.org, 2014). Dr. Evans feels that genetics research will continue to accelerate; and that sequencing DNA and other interrogations of DNA will become faster, less expensive and more robust. The challenge is going to be how to interpret such an overwhelming

Despite the advancement in research and the frequency of utilization of genetic tests, and a more comprehensive understanding of genomics there is still concerns and intimidation about what the future might bring. In the registry I am currently working the samples we collect get stored indefinitely. My worry is that if a scandal breaks. That the patients will call to withdraw so their cells are destroyed. The is easier on a patient who is used as control rather than a patient with IBD whose life expentacy is effected by the disease. But lets think about a cancer patient who passed away from the disease.Their families have no say into either to store or destry the

Genetic testing has gone viral in recent era with advancements made in computing. Breakthroughs in hardware and software is driving down the costs associated with the whole genome sequencing (WGS) making it more affordable. Independent companies have started to offer general public a chance to have their genome sequenced. In most cases the test requires a doctor’s referral however the Silicon Valley company 23&me believes it is everyone’s right to know about their genes making 23&me one of the few companies that performs the test for curious individuals who like to learn about their DNA (Holt, "NOVA: Cracking Your Genetic Code", 2012, t. 10’:00”). Genetic testing shows genes variations and mutations that could be used for a better

In 2008, Congress passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), which “protects Americans from being treated unfairly because of differences in their DNA that may affect their health” (NIH). When people discover that they are more at risk for a genetic disease, potential employers or insurance companies are forbidden to use this information against them. Consequently, people are not as hesitant to perform genetic testing or participate in research because the information they gain cannot be used at their disadvantage. Additionally, genotyping companies such as 23andMe have clear, publicly available privacy statements that participants are free to read before they agree to send in their DNA. They assure potential consumers that “personal information and genetic data are stored in physically separate computing environments” and “software, hardware and physical security measures [are used] to protect the computers where customer data is stored” (23andMe). Even though genetic data cannot be fully anonymized, measures are being taken to promote the security of an individual’s personal

“The Human Genome Project has already fueled the discovery of more than 1800 disease genes” (Human, 2010). Genetic sequencing is a vastly expanding industry that began with the Human Genome Project in the 1990s. The Human Genome Project was an ambitious endeavor that undertook the challenge of sequencing the entire human genome which is composed of billions of base pairs. Although this was no easy challenge, the project proved successful and in 2003 researchers finally sequenced a complete set of human Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA). This achievement was the beginning of a new era. The success of the Human Genome Project has enabled scientist to sequence an individual’s entire genome; this capability has presented both benefits and obstacles. Personalized genomic sequencing is already beginning to prove valuable in not only the medical field but is also being integrated into other fields such as criminal justice. However, genomic sequencing has generated controversy because of the questions about privacy, costs, ethics, and dependability. Genetic sequencing is a vastly expanding field that has economic, political, and social benefits, but the American Medical Association needs to adopt policies to resolve ethical uncertainties pertaining to the practice.

The human genome project is an international effort that serves as a possible solution to the many diseases that affect billions of people worldwide. This project is a great milestone in the field of genetics as it allows scientists to determine the sequence of genes in chromosomes which will show where disease causing mutations are occurring and what can be done to reverse it. Looking back in time, many of the diseases which could be cured were done by administering drugs and certain types of therapies. As the complexity of technology as well as advancements in the understanding of our bodies increased, more diseases became curable through these very drugs and therapies. However, many times individuals find it hard to deal with the side effects that these solutions create. The human genome project aims to make disease and illnesses curable more efficiently and to become readily available to individuals throughout the world. It is therefore necessary the that society begins to accept this project as the new frontier in medical treatment and prevention of diseases. By having a greater investment and understanding in the Human genome Project, the scientific community will determine more information about DNA to develop treatment plans, prevention methods, and develop cures to diseases that affect humans; thus yielding medically important information for society.

DNA has evolved and made several contributions to the world of biology. Time has changed and so has technology as well, living in today’s

This study helps us to understand what we need to know about companies owning specific portions of DNA sequences that exist in our own human bodies.