[ExI] dna ethics question

[Anders Sandberg]

spike <spike66 at att.net> , 5/5/2014 4:53 PM:


 

Adrian you were a sane voice last time.  What do we do now, coach?  What can go wrong?  What can go right?  Anyone else?  Anders wan Kanobi?
Hmm... (trying to look like a crazy old hermit and failing) As I see it, there are three issues: invasion of privacy, risk of error, and what kind of legal evidence is acceptable. 
First, do people have a right to genetic privacy? I think this one is problematic, because there is no fundamental right to privacy in the same way as there is a fundamental right to life, liberty and one's body. Having one's privacy respected is good, but what constitutes privacy is very much constructed by a current culture. If I do not want my genes read, I might refuse to volunteer samples and I might assert ownership over my DNA in shed cells; respectful people would refrain from stealing samples. But if they have an unknown sample and sequence it respect doesn't come into play - especially if this is done in pursuit of justice. However, there is an extra twist: identifying people by grandparents also involves affecting the genetic privacy of a family. It is not just one person who might object or be affected (finding out stuff about my genes will tell you stuff about my cousins too). Note that if I volunteer my DNA, I force my family into the scheme too, perhaps without asking them. 
The risk of error should not be ignored. Just because it looks objective and exact doesn't mean it is 100% reliable. Would the system detect mismatches or weak signals? Could it avoid causing damaging false alarms?
Finally, there is the issue of what kind of evidence is accepted. The US has a much tighter system than for example Sweden, so police evidence must be gathered very carefully and in accordance to the law. But a tip from the genetic sleuths seems to my legal understanding be an acceptable tip: it is not proof of anything, but a reason to look at a group of people. That it is based on DNA makes it a tad more plausible than a tip based on a psychic, but I seem to recall that there have been cases where even very weak tips have turned out to be relevant and led to gathering of evidence that held up in court. 
So my view is that a system like this would likely work legally (although I can imagine creative people suing 23andMe or the genetic sleuths for all sorts of things if it happens - especially for false alarms). Ethically, it is equivalent to a sample of people volunteering their DNA and acting as informers: if it was just for themselves, everything would be entirely unproblematic. It is just the family angle that makes it hard to give an unequivocal thumbs up. 
I think we will end up with something like this sooner or later anyway. The bigger issue is that US and UK governments normally do not keep track of their citizens very well. 

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140506/b6233f95/attachment.html>