"Genetic McCarthyism"?

[Adelaide]

The era of Maury-Povich politics is officially upon us, after President Donald Trump suggested at a rally in Montana last week that Senator Elizabeth Warren be subjected to a DNA test.

“I shouldn’t tell you ’cause I like not to give away secrets… Let’s say I’m debating Pocahontas,” the president said, reviving his favorite racist nickname for the senator. “You know those little kits they sell on television for $2…I’m gonna get one of those little kits and in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims that she’s of Indian heritage, because her mother says she has high cheekbones…we will take that little kit…but we have to do it gently, because we are in the Me Too generation… I will give you $1 million to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian…I have a feeling she will say no.”
...
Shortly after the 2008 presidential election, the New England Journal of Medicine published a perspective titled “The Genetic Privacy of Presidential Candidates,” which warned politicians running for office about a threat it called “genetic McCarthyism.” Because genetic information is so easily misinterpreted and misrepresented, the authors argued, presidential campaigns should resist calls to release candidates’ genomic information and pledge not to attempt to obtain or release the genomic information of their opponents.

“You want to undercut somebody’s political ambitions? Find a mutation,” says Sheldon Krimsky, a professor at Tufts University who studies the bioethics of genetic engineering. “What if one of them has the mutation for late onset Alzheimer’s disease? It’ll become a big story.”

Donald Trump's DNA Attack on Elizabeth Warren is the Beginning of Genetic McCarthyism


The first part is a highly partisan argument/comment about Trump - the second part is what I think deserves a discussion. It seems like a dangerous road to head down, especially since genetics is not highly accurate for many issues and has various articles floating around about different genes or proteins that might explain or not explain certain behaviors or whatever. It certainly should not be used in elections. It is an area of science that has a long way to go and it really shouldn't be encouraged as a tool for politicians. I also think that is a serious privacy issue.

[Captdon]

This makes no sense at all.

[Adelaide]

This makes no sense at all.

The article uses the gene that is associated with Alzheimer's as an example: if you could force your opponent to submit to a DNA test, could you harm their electability with genetics? Genetics, which is largely still misunderstood. The gene associated with Alzheimer's (APOE e4) is not 100% accurate, and not every person with Alzheimer's has it. But it could cast doubt on a candidate for no real reason, especially for people who do not understand the field (which is just about everyone).

In theory, it could be used to discriminate against candidates for office based on a number of genes that aren't a guarantee of illness or disease but can cast doubt and perhaps cause the public to think that it means the candidate could have that illness or disease.

Does that make sense? The "McCarthyism" part is referring to the fact you could go on a witchhunt and invalidate most candidates based on science that is not well developed or highly accurate.

[Mister D]

The first part consists of hysterics. Genetic McCarthyism is a really silly term. Warren is a fraud and Trump is right to call her out.

I've often said that the left turns against science when it clashes with their ideals. Case in point. A truly galling case I might add. That said, genetic determinism is indeed a dangerous road to travel and this is a privacy issue. Hopefully some of us finally will learn that bioethics is a deadly serious matter.

[Adelaide]

The first part consists of hysterics. Genetic McCarthyism is a really silly term. Warren is a fraud and Trump is right to call her out.

I've often said that the left turns against science when it clashes with their ideals. Case in point. A truly galling case I might add. That said, genetic determinism is indeed a dangerous road to travel and this is a privacy issue. Hopefully some of us finally will learn that bioethics is a deadly serious matter.

That's why I said to ignore it. Even I recognize it as foolish and partisan and hysterical.

But the second part is interesting. Forget about what side you're on and what side someone else is on; if all candidates were forced to submit to DNA tests, it could really be disastrous and hurt the election process based on a field of science that is basically in infancy.

[Mister D]

That's why I said to ignore it. Even I recognize it as foolish and partisan and hysterical.

But the second part is interesting. Forget about what side you're on and what side someone else is on; if all candidates were forced to submit to DNA tests, it could really be disastrous and hurt the election process based on a field of science that is basically in infancy.

As a Catholic, I have an interest in the larger question raised here but, quite frankly, I don't think Mr. Walsh takes this as seriously as he should hence my comments on the left. Anyway, I agree that the larger issue is troubling.

[barb012]

If they used that, they would find that we are all born with genetic markers with specific diseases or what not. Of course it doesn't mean that the person with those markers will get that disease because your environment is also needed to for those genes to become reality.

[Adelaide]

If they used that, they would find that we are all born with genetic markers with specific diseases or what not. Of course it doesn't mean that the person with those markers will get that disease because your environment is also needed to for those genes to become reality.

Some mutations have a very high probability, as we understand it, of producing an illness, though. There is science that can link a significant number of cases to one specific gene or protein with a high or full penetration classification. The Huntington's mutation is dominant and can be shown to definitively cause Huntington's if there are enough repeats in DNA, for example. Would you vote for someone who was definitely going to get Huntington's disease? What about female candidates with a BRCA1 mutation, where roughly 72% will develop breast or ovarian cancer? What about BRCA2 where the rate is 69%? The Glu318Gly mutation causes early onset Alzheimer's in 12% of those that have it - would you be concerned with electing that person?

Largely, it's not an exact science and exploration is preliminary (but really cool) so most people wouldn't ding on a test for having a mutation that is as definitively harmful as the Huntington's mutation or BRCA1 and BRCA2. Most known gene mutations are not known or implicated in such high rates of disease, but some do exist. I think that some diseases are also more concerning than others, so someone with a 12% chance of Alzheimer's is going to possibly be severely impacted by the public knowing their DNA results compared to someone with the Philadelphia chromosome that is associated with several forms of leukemia. That second person may in the long run have cancer at some point, and the other may never have Alzheimer's, but I think the public could be influenced by it.

[Chris]

If they used that, they would find that we are all born with genetic markers with specific diseases or what not. Of course it doesn't mean that the person with those markers will get that disease because your environment is also needed to for those genes to become reality.

I used to work for a biomedical startup that developed genetic tests for various diseases that would be administered to babies. Very useful because knowing the possibilities ahead can let you set up a regimen (environment) for a healthy lifestyle;le to avoid any onset. It was a hard sell, however, as doctors were concerned what insurance companies would do with the knowledge.

[barb012]

I used to work for a biomedical startup that developed genetic tests for various diseases that would be administered to babies. Very useful because knowing the possibilities ahead can let you set up a regimen (environment) for a healthy lifestyle;le to avoid any onset. It was a hard sell, however, as doctors were concerned what insurance companies would do with the knowledge.

I certainly can understand their concern with corrupt insurance companies.