Pahrump News
What I Think
DNA. According to American Heritage Dictionary DNA means;
A nucleic acid that carries the genetic information in the cell and is capable of self-replication and synthesis of RNA. DNA consists of two long chains of nucleotides twisted into a double helix and joined by hydrogen bonds between the complementary bases adenine and thymine or cytosine and guanine. The sequence of nucleotides determines individual hereditary characteristics. [D (EOXYRIBO)N (UCLEIC) A (CID).]
The question has arose as to whether or not it is a good and ethical idea to take the DNA of a newborn baby. There are several compelling reasons to do so. A national database could be set up to catch criminals. Perhaps even an international database. It could help doctors in preventative procedures and medicines for people who are predisposed to a disease. If a child gets abducted and is later found, they could be identified through their DNA.
In March of 2005, the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) reported that the Human Genetics Commission (HGC) and the National Screening Committee concluded that the taking of DNA from newborns would not be cost effective and would pose ethical and legal problems. Also, the link between genetics and health is tenuous and more research needs to be done before this type of profiling would be of help in managing a baby’s health. They suggested that the subject be revisited in five years.
In December of 2006, the UK Sun reported that one of Britain’s best murder investigators, Commander Dave Johnston, was calling for the DNA profiling of babies.
He said, "We have 300,000 unsolved cases where we have taken a profile at a crime scene but have not yet matched it."
Commander Johnston also said that DNA profiling may even be a crime deterrent. He also stated that the idea was his personal view but he feels that a debate needs to be started on the issue.
Established in 1999, the National DNA Database in Great Britain has over 3 million DNA profiles. This database is from people who have been arrested, but the article did not state whether they had been convicted.
This question is not going away any time soon. It will continue to tiptoe within the shadows of government officials until they succumb to it, whether we as ‘The People’ want it or not.
DNA profiling presents a barrage of issues, be they moral, ethical or legal. The legal aspect will no doubt be played out in the Supreme Court. How the Court will vote depends upon the abilities of the parties presenting the case.
In the United States, our legal system says we are innocent until proven guilty. If in fact DNA is taken from newborns and sent to a "National DNA Crime Database," does not that negate the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ clause of our legal system? While this idea may seem somewhat absurd, it is out there and the point is well received by some. Are we to become a nation of suspects?
Another aspect of DNA profiling is; who keeps the data? Obviously the data
would be stored on a computer system, available to law enforcement personnel. If
the DNA
information is treated like all other personal information, a private company
will get the contract to store the information and require passwords for law
enforcement personal to access that information.
One has only to glance at a news cast, or read the letter that came in the mail from, "We Keep Your Records Private", but there has been a problem,’ to know that there is not a database in the world that cannot have its data stolen.
Other arguments state that, "I have no intention on breaking the law so it’s okay with me." That is an inane comment. When a person quietly allows Big Brother to dictate how their neighbor has to act because it does not affect them personally, then that person has just become affected. Perhaps not today or tomorrow, but it will happen to them.
The potential for abuse of DNA information is too great. There are corporations that would pay out great sums of cash to get the information. One of those types of corporations would be medical and life insurance companies. While this may sound outrageous, it is a well known fact that insurance companies employ a plethora of analysts (bean counters) that do nothing but count the cost of giving a person medical treatment or letting them die.
The DNA information, even though research has not been able to prove a positive link between it and the predisposition of a disease, would be used by insurance companies in their decision on who they would insure, not insure, or charge an even more outrageous price for medical or life insurance coverage.
However, there is a better than even chance the insurance companies would not
need to steal the information. They could get it legally by lobbying Congress.
The bill may not
pass the first time around, but it would eventually be attached and buried
inside of another bill that would pass.
The argument of DNA profiling to ‘keep your child safe’ is just silly. A DNA profile is not going to deter a child abductor. Despite of the sensationalism of the news media every time a child goes missing, it happens very rarely, and a great majority are taken by an estranged mother or father. The only way DNA profiling will help in a child abduction case is to perhaps identify the body faster.
DNA profiling will eventually be routine. As will nuclear power and human embryos encased in a glass tube, instead of their mother’s womb, for the first nine months of their lives.
Someone once said, "When a person gives up freedom for safety, then that person no longer has a right to freedom or to safety." Perhaps it was Benjamin Franklin. If so, as it was true in his day, it is still true today.
When we quietly allow ‘Big Brother’ to become even larger and more powerful, we leave unlocked the gates that keep us protected. When we quietly surrender small freedoms for safety and when we quietly relinquish the rights of our neighbors, we are imprisoning ourselves.
Main Page Astronomy Pahrump News Current Events Public Service Announcements Political Links
Political Announcements Science and Ecology Classified Ads In Brief