2010-02-05 11:17 (UTC)
I don't really have an opinion on DNA screening of children at birth for genetic disorders, except to say that parents should give consent, but I do feel compelled to point out that the form of screening the article's talking about is not the same form of forensic DNA identification made (inaccurately) popular by shows such as CSI. The screening that article's talking about is for genetic diseases, and the screening used for forensic purposes is far different: it uses the 'junk' DNA that doesn't code for the expression of any traits. (There are thousands of places in the human genome where it gets 'stuck', hiccuping out endless repeats of the same sequences like someone's finger got stuck on the copier too long; forensic DNA screening counts up the number of hiccups at 13 separate points, in the bits of the genome that aren't used for anything, and has absolutely no bearing on looks, health, etc -- it's total garbage.)

So, screening for genetic disorders can't be used for identification, and screening for identification can't be used for discovering genetic disorders. (Not just isn't, literally can't.) It isn't the equivalent of fingerprinting all babies at birth and putting them into some sort of identification registry.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

July 2017

M T W T F S S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
1718192021 2223
24252627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags