Skip to main content

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.


Plans for a national DNA database  will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties?

When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metaphors.  It is however a very important bit of biology and it does have the potential for saying something about our health or our potential health; and it is this that poses the greatest problem ethically.

The science of genomics seeks to associate risk of disease or ill health with particular gene mutations or with patterns of expression. The value of the database is precisely that it enhances the potential for finding these associations and potentially developing treatments targeted at those gene mutations.  Databases already exist but they lack the breadth of a truly national database.

The ethical argument in favour of a national database is a utilitarian one; that the benefits to be gained will outweigh the small risk that the database might be misused.  The database would be anonymised so that names are not associated with it or at least not in a way they could readily be accessed by other than those working on projects requiring a study of cohorts of individuals.  The risk is that this could be  breached and pose problems if, for example, insurance companies had access to the risk assessments.

Potentially there are other issues that might arise. For example, if it is found that a particular mutation has a significant chance of affecting the health of those individuals who carry it, then should they be informed? This is a problem because many people may not wish to be informed, particularly if there is no cure for the problem. It might affect their lifestyle as a sword of Damocles hanging over them and it might affect their potential for life or health insurance should insurance companies insist on declarations of whether they had been informed.  It is also not clear at what level of risk if at all people should be informed.

These are genuine concerns particularly as such mutations are likely to be passed on to their offspring.  It would also, therefore, present the individual with a dilemma: whether or not to inform others in the family. These are real issues and if such a database is established then there would have to be assurances that they could be dealt with. One way of dealing with it would be to state at the outset that no individual would be informed of any link; that the database would only be for research purposes and not part of the health care of the individual. Just how this could be expected to hold if the projects using the database become successful is difficult to predict. No doubt there will be strong arguments forthcoming that individuals will have a right to know. Perversely then the very grounds for opposing the database then becomes the grounds for opening access, civil liberties!

Why 'Opt out' consent may not be ethical

Since publishing this post I have considered the need to add a few words about the proposed 'opt out' strategy for consent. An opt out strategy for the data base assumes informed consent to inclusion  unless someone specifically indicates they do not wish to be included.  Much hangs on its credibility and how it will work. In this case I am dubious about  the robustness or efficacy of 'opt out'. It is unclear how this could work in a research context. In a clinical context it can work where it is clear what the consequences might be of either being included or not. In the case of research this is not clear if only because the outcome of the research inevitably remains unclear, at least in the early stages.

The history of ethics in scientific research is fairly recent. Prior to the development of ethical review in research and the development of key principles and how they would be applied, patients and other subjects could be recruited without proper consent. We should be wary of breaching that principle. Proper consent is not simply that they say 'yes' to being included, but that they agree after being informed appropriately of potential outcomes and benefits and potential harms to those in the trial. We may feel that a database offers little or no potential for harm, but this depends of a number of factors: how the information will be protected, how it will be used and what will happen to the information as the studies based on it develop. This last point is clearly an unknown.  Without clear safeguards it would be relatively easy to decide the data could be used in ways not envisaged at the outset.  If this was done then it would be done without consent of those included in the database, because their positive consent had not been obtained to be included.

Whether such a breach could occur may depend then on the arguments presented. I have no doubt that similar utilitarian arguments will be marshalled in favour. It will be argued that the benefits would outweigh the potential harms and thus justify a breach of the normal principle.  Furthermore, it is possible that the clamour for disclosure will come on civil liberties grounds with arguments that individuals have a right to know what information is held about them in relation to the outcome of any research. We need to be vigilant about breaches of the fundamental principle of informed consent.

Comments

  1. They're welcome to try and take my DNA Ray but they risk losing the use of their vocal chords with a short, sharp punch to the larynx highly likely. But first they have to catch me and then tie me down and deal with my flailing fists. Basically, not a cat-in-hell's chance. I would die first before a needle came within a foot of my donating arm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think unless they can win the public over on this and give assurances then it will be difficult. Else research data would be obtained on a mass scale without proper informed consent. There are other examples of 'opt out' in clinical practice. HIV testing in pregnancy is one where blood will be tested unless the pregnant woman specifically requests that it not be. It does run the risk of breaching one of the key principles in research ethics.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As