Bolnick's The Science and Business of Genetic Ancestry Testing was a clear reminder of some of the dangers associated with society's growing interest in and uses of genetic testing. The increasing accessibility of research on genetic material has provided scientists with an enormous new range of material to study. Though the article discussed genetic ancestry testing, it reminded me of another interesting (and controversial) way the human genome is being explored that I learned about in a psychology class. In a famous Italian murder court case, convicted murderer Abdelmalek Bayout, Bayout was notably given a 1 year reduction in his prison sentencing because testing had shown that he was genetically more predisposed to have violent behavior. Similar to criticisms against genetic testing for ancestry in Bolnick's article, testing for a 'violence gene' was quoted as being "useless and expensive" (Feresin, 2009). In addition to being far away from being able to make a definitive conclusion on a violence gene that would be accepted by the entire scientific community, the idea of this predisposition leads to a slippery slope that is common theme in research that relies heavily on genetics. For instance, are only particular groups predisposed to be more violent? And, why, if someone is predisposed to violence get a reduction in sentencing if they are bound to act up again? The use of these genetic tests in the court of law baffles me and I am interested in seeing what other ways scientists/lawyers etc. use genetics in the future as scientists continue to discover more about the human genome and the endless ways it can be used.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091030/full/news.2009.1050.html
No comments:
Post a Comment