![]() ![]() So what’s the upshot for you? or better or for worse, how the courts rule in genetic paparazzi cases will shape how society thinks about genetic privacy and about individual rights regarding genetics more broadly. While courts have for the most part managed to evade dealing with the complexities of surreptitious DNA collection and testing of public figures, they won’t be able to avoid dealing with it for much longer.Īnd when they do, they are going to run squarely into the limitations of existing legal frameworks when it comes to genetics. We believe that growing public interest in genetics has increased the likelihood that genetic paparazzi with DNA collection kits may soon become as ubiquitous as ones with cameras. We are law professors who study how emerging technologies like genetic sequencing are regulated. But as more advanced, faster, and cheaper genetic technologies have reached the consumer realm, these concerns seem not only reasonable but justified. ![]() She has hired cleaning crews to sterilize her dressing rooms after concerts and requires her own new toilet seats at each stop of her tours.Īt first, Madonna was ridiculed for having DNA paranoia. While these concerns may seem relatively new, pop star celebrity Madonna has been raising alarm bells about the potential for nonconsensual, surreptitious collection and testing of DNA for over a decade. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz similarly refused to take a Russian PCR COVID-19 test. Many speculated that Macron refused due to security concerns that the Russians would take and use his DNA for nefarious purposes. So it was with a picture of French President Emmanuel Macron and Russian President Vladimir Putin sitting at opposite ends of a very long table after Macron declined to take a Russian PCR COVID-19 test. Every so often stories of genetic theft, or extreme precautions taken to avoid it, make headline news. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |