Social Uses of DNA

This week's readings put us in a frame of mind to further explore the social effects and consequences of advancement in DNA technology. I believe it's important to note here the crucial importance of collective memory and desire for belonging as it applies to this relatively new scientific pursuit. The brief Bolnick article held that many get DNA tested in search of some sort of connection, "homeland," or to confirm genealogical records. Here, it would appear that the decision is made as a result of personal autonomy, out of a desire to discover and better oneself. Indeed, it appears that this is the sort of thing that is occurring in Wagner's book, To Know Where He Lies, along a different vein. In the first two chapters, we are introduced to the politics surrounding the Bosnian genocide that occurred at Srebrenica, as well as an undying spirit among the women of the community to capture any sort of information regarding their lost loved ones. This was particularly striking to me, as the women of this country would soon be given an incredible resource to realize what they'd wanted for so long, simple information about the men they cared for. This, for me, is one of the most beautiful and impactful effects of genetic testing, putting populations in contact with much desired information they would not otherwise not be privy to. The fact that they banded together into an association that met informally only furthers this idea of the communal desire to recapture lost identities after the men were exhumed and reburied. I imagine that as we read further in Wagner, we will see a collective response of pain yet closure as the men who were murdered are identified.
The Lee, Mountain, and Koenig article launches into an relatively extensive critique about the development of genetic testing, the most salient of which appears to be that certain racial or ethnic groups would suffer great stigma as a result of "[their] genetic markers being associated with illness" (60).  In essence, race itself becomes the focal point rather than many of the structural violence issues underwriting disease burdens in modern society which are often not given enough professional attention
Personally, I agree with the criticism of the "reductionist" argument that the three authors propose, and it has the ability to alter our schema of what is normal and abnormal, ignoring the crucial nature of environmental context. They also claim a purported emphasis in research on "good" or "bad" gene sets. Consider a possible fallout from this. Somebody is found to have a gene that codes for a mutation which leads to some deficiency. The lab might determine that not as much research is necessary because their calculated risk later in life is much higher and because the prevalence is lower. Will we see a system of medical prioritization in which people start to be turned away because they tested for some deleterious gene, that can't really be helped because they will get sicker eventually?  A biosocial, anthropologically informed approach to disease which takes into account personal decisions and risky behaviors, political economy, disparities, and systematic oppression (aspects of nurture) is crucial in order to obtain a more comprehensive viewpoint, rather than letting nature, our genetic code, take an inflated role in biomedical developments.