How much access to DNA databases should be shared with public?

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. 

After dozens of unsuccessful treatments, Eric Dishman started to suspect that his illness was due to something other than the rare kidney cancer he was diagnosed with in 1989. Five years ago, he had his whole genome sequenced, then gave the data to oncologists — and learned that he had a different type of cancer altogether.

Dishman now leads the health and life-sciences division of microprocessor giant Intel in Banks, Oregon. He is also a member of a working group run by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) for the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) — a U.S. $215-million project to collect data on genomes, health records and physiological measurements from 1 million participants, to learn how genetics, environment and lifestyle influence disease risk and the effectiveness of treatments.

The group is expected to release a project plan, and observers are eager to learn its answer to a key question: how much information about disease risk, especially genetic data, will the project share with participants?

That issue is the subject of much debate. Dishman and others say that participants should at least have the option to see all their personal data so that they can investigate their own health, just as he did. But some specialists in the field say that showing participants their data is irresponsible, because the information is challenging for people to interpret and its significance is often uncertain.

Read full, original post: Giant study poses DNA data-sharing dilemma

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Mar-27-2026-11_47_30-AM-2
FDA’s expedited drug reviews are hailed in some quarters but other approval practices are problematic
Screenshot-2026-05-01-at-1.29.41-PM
Viewpoint: What happens when whole grains meet modern food manufacturing? Labels don’t tell the whole story.
Farmers can talk to plants
Farmers are a major source of misinformation—about farming
ChatGPT-Image-Apr-13-2026-02_20_22-PM
Viewpoint: Misinformation infodemic? Why assessing evidence is so challenging 
S
As vaccine rejectionism spreads, measles may be taking a more dangerous turn
Screenshot 2026-05-06 at 2.19
Vaccine shootout at the CDC 
Screenshot-2026-04-20-at-2.26.27-PM
Viewpoint — Food-fear world: The latest activist scientists campaign: Cancer-causing additives
What explains Homo sapiens’ huge brains? Ancient climate change played a role
Viewpoint: Internal White House documents detail administration’s strategy to undermine climate science
ChatGPT-Image-May-7-2026-11_28_04-AM-2
‘Conflict entrepreneurs’ are driving disinformation and shaping public opinion
ChatGPT-Image-May-6-2026-03_41_05-PM
‘Protecting the integrity of science’: Kennedy’s FDA blocks release of taxpayer-funded studies finding COVID and shingles vaccines safe
bigstock opioids on chalkboard with rol
GLP podcast: 'Safe injection sites': enabling drug addiction or saving lives?
Screenshot-2026-05-06-at-2.07.43-PM
Manufacturing a conspiracy: The timeline of how  the White House embraced the fringe claim that scientists are being mysteriously murdered
Screenshot 2026-05-06 at 2.56
Singularity crisis ahead? Can super babies save us from rogue AI geniuses?
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.