[tt] NYT Letters: Getting to Know Your DNA

[Premise Checker]

Getting to Know Your DNA
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/opinion/l23dna.html

To the Editor:

Re My Genome, Myself: Seeking Clues in DNA (The DNA Age series,
front page, Nov. 17):

Wanting to know more about ourselves is both a strength and a
hazard. The lure of genetic data can be compelling but misleading,
for no list of tiny variants in ones genetic code can reliably
predict ones future regarding cancer, heart attacks or diabetes,
let alone I.Q., addiction or gullibility.

Amy Harmons humorous account of her own genome search may still
leave many readers willing to send off a little saliva and a big
check to a genome company. Those companies are selling only a
fragment of your identity. Knowing that you have this or that
disease-associated SNP in your genes tells you very little or helps
only with rare diseases.

What causes the SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) to be
expressed, to spring into action or to remain dormant? Why can
identical twins, with genomes alike down to the last SNP, develop
different diseases? What if you smoke, toil for years in a
high-stress job or live in a polluted neighborhood?

Predispositions are just the beginning. Your future depends on much
more than your genetic code. Ms. Harmon would have done better to
spend her money on a good gym, and The Times would serve us better
by emphasizing the limits of genetic knowledge.

Susan M. Reverby, Ph.D.
Jay Kaufman, Ph.D.
H. Jack Geiger, M.D.
Cambridge, Mass., Nov. 18, 2007

Dr. Reverby is professor of the history of ideas at Wellesley
College; Dr. Kaufman is associate professor of epidemiology at the
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; and Dr. Geiger is
emeritus professor of community medicine at City University of New
York Medical School.

To the Editor:

The exposé on surfing for ones genome demonstrates the slipperiness
of tapping genetic information. Personally, Id rather not know
about my predilection for certain tastes mainly because it would
take the fun out of trying new foods. (Not the cream of lobster: Im
lactose-intolerant and lack the taste gene for bottom-feeding sea
creatures!!)

Yet I recognize the importance of genetic research in biology and
medicine. The paradox is that to make intellectual strides, society
must accept some risk. People should recognize that a wealth of
both critical and inconsequential genetic information is becoming
available. But within privacy laws, they should also be able to
keep the right to choose the movies they watch, the Web sites they
frequent and how much they want to learn about their genetic
potential.

Andrew Zinn, M.D.
Kew Gardens, Queens, Nov. 17, 2007

To the Editor:

Amy Harmon mentions the risk that insurers might deny coverage
based on future availability of a persons detailed genetic
information. The future also poses a risk that employers could
misuse genetic screening and data.

Since 1990, most states have passed laws to prevent genetic
discrimination, but federal protection is essential. The Genetic
Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007 was passed by the House
this spring; Senator Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine, has
proposed a Senate version. If you are worried about such
discrimination (and you should be), contact your senators to voice
your support of this legislation.

Katherine Brokaw
Atlanta, Nov. 17, 2007

To the Editor:

The real news is that the genetic genie is out of the bottle. The
consumers embrace of genetic analysis is now unstoppable. And
though the medical community warns how little we can actually learn
from most of our genes, these caveats do not diminish our
curiosity.

The truth is that the medical establishment has not co-opted the
genetic paradigm because doctors are busy and see little value
right now for themselves or their patients. As such, genetics may
go the way of cosmetic dermatology and surgery.

Hugh Young Rienhoff Jr., M.D.
San Francisco, Nov. 18, 2007

The writer is director of MyDaughtersDNA.org., a forum on genetics.