University of Akron Wants Employee DNA

Bizarre!

From one of CBS News' "Taking Liberties" blog: Want A Job In Akron? Hand Over Your DNA

It's not unusual for employers to conduct criminal background checks during the hiring process. But the University of Akron has taken this to a surprising new level.

The Ohio school now reserves the right to require any prospective faculty, staff, or contractor to submit a DNA sample, which genetic-testing experts say makes it the first employer in the nation to take such an extreme and potentially intrusive step.

Why on earth is a university taking a step that seems to violate the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act? The explanation offered by the University (outlined in the CBS blog entry) isn't very convincing. Generally, policies of any kind are implemented in response to a recurring problem. And U of Akron doesn't seem to be able to be clear about just what that problem is, let alone make the case that it's a problem sufficiently grave to warrant massive invasion of employees' genetic privacy.

Biotech & World Hunger: Good Debate, Wrong Question

If you want a quick overview of the main points for-and-against GM foods, you could do worse than to check out this recent debate hosted by the NY Times: Can Biotech Food Cure World Hunger?

With food prices remaining high in developing countries, the United Nations estimates that the number of hungry people around the world could increase by 100 million in 2009 and pass the one billion mark. A summit of world leaders in Rome scheduled for November will set an agenda for ways to reduce hunger and increase investment in agriculture development in poor countries.

What will drive the next Green Revolution? Is genetically modified food an answer to world hunger? Are there other factors that will make a difference in food production?

And the piece includes short commentaries from:

Paul Collier, economist, Oxford Univ.
Vandana Shiva, activist and author
Per Pinstrup-Andersen, prof. of nutrition and public policy, Cornell
Raj Patel, Institute for Food and Development Policy
Jonathan Foley, U of Minnesota
Michael J. Roberts, economist, North Carolina State U.

The biggest problem with the NYT debate here is the starting point: curing world hunger? Please. No technology is going to do that, and to put that forward as a possibility is to set oneself up for a disappointment of tragic proportions. The right question is more like, "Can biotech — as it could be used, rather than as it has been used thus far — provide sufficient gains in productivity, in the right parts of the world, to have a meaningful effect on overall levels of hunger?"

Reminder: Survey on Personal Genomics & Ethics

This is a reminder that our research survey on Personal Genomics, Privacy & Consent is still open, and we still need input from people with a wide range of points of view. This is an innovative, interactive survey that lets you see the answers other people have given while you take the survey, as well as letting you respond.

You can visit the page hosting the survey here: yourviews.ubc.ca

For a fuller explanation, see my previous blog entry on this.

Geneticists Challenge Personal Genomics Companies' Results

As I've blogged before, the usefulness of the whole-genome scans offered by personal genomics companies is very much subject to debate. It's not clear just what one is supposed to be able to do with the test results, beyond being fascinated and entertained. But at very least, consumers are bound to expect the tests to be scientifically credible.

Well, the biggest name in genomics has just hurled a bit of a challenge in the direction of 2 personal genomics companies, in that regard.

Here's the story, from the Genetic Future blog: Scientists call for changes to personal genomics based on comparison of test results

Four scientists - including the omnipresent J. Craig Venter (left) - have penned an opinion piece in the latest issue of Nature based results from five individuals genotyped by two separate personal genomics companies. The article highlights some deficiencies in the way that genetic data are currently used by direct-to-consumer companies to generate risk predictions and to present them to customers.

Here's the story as reported by the LA Times:Warning: DNA test results may not be as reliable as they appear.

Interestingly, no comment has appeared on 23andMe's blog or Navigenics' blog.

On Navigenics Fan Page on Facebook, however, the company has posted links to a couple of news items on this topic...but hasn't added any comments of its own.

World Wildlife Fund now a Biotech Booster

Of all the interested parties you expect to be boosting biotech...well, environmental charities haven't exactly been high on that list. Here's an exception.

From Business Wire: WWF report: Industrial biotech can save the world up to 2.5 billion tons of CO2 per year

The WWF report Industrial biotechnology - more than green fuel in a dirty economy?,which has been published today, concludes that industrial biotechnology can provide dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and provide strong
progress toward a green and sustainable economy. WWF calls for increased political backing for the industry to leverage the positive environmental effects. The findings are based on peer-reviewed research from Novozymes, the world leader in bioinnovation, as well as contributions from experts and WWF.

Make of it what you will. But it's worth noting that, like information technology, biotechnology is a cluster of technologies that's bound to have its upsides and downsides, environmentally. I've blogged before about how some folks see way too eager to hop on the bio-enviro bandwagon, even going so far as to equate the terms "industrial biotechnology" and "green chemistry." But it's interesting here to see a major, reputable environmental NGO touting the green side of biotech.