Journeyman

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.