Using DNA to reunite immigrant families shows why genetic screening ‘should be widely embraced’

reunification

As the U.S. government struggles to make good on its promise to reunite all 3,000 children and parents who were separated at the border, it would seem like its use of DNA testing would be universally celebrated.

Instead, immigrant advocates lambasted the move.

Children aren’t qualified to agree to participate in the saliva-collection procedure. Nor can their separated parents give permission on their behalf from afar, obviously — which are violations of international scientific standards of informed consent. And what about children with legitimate non-biological parents or whose parents have already been deported to Central America without them — far away from the nearest spit tube?

But the entrenched opposition also reflects a deep general discomfort about the role of DNA science among immigrant and minority communities.

Related article:  Do super high IQ children end up successful?

A 2016 study in Public Health Genomics about Latino people’s attitudes regarding genetic testing revealed rampant mistrust: Respondents said they were concerned about doctors using their health information for unauthorized research or health and life insurance companies denying them coverage after learning they were at risk for future diseases.

Let’s hope the government will use good science responsibly to bring quick relief to anguished children and parents. Not only does it give us a shot at redemption as a country, it sends a clear message that DNA science should be embraced.

Read full, original post: Why There’s a Deep Cultural Aversion to DNA Testing, Even When It Can Reunite Separated Immigrant Families

Outbreak
Outbreak Daily Digest
Biotech Facts & Fallacies
Talking Biotech
Genetics Unzipped
Video: Test everyone – Slovakia goes its own way to control COVID

Video: Test everyone – Slovakia goes its own way to control COVID

As Europe sees record coronavirus cases and deaths, Slovakia is testing its entire adult population. WSJ's Drew Hinshaw explains how ...
mag insects image superjumbo v

Disaster interrupted: Which farming system better preserves insect populations: Organic or conventional?

A three-year run of fragmentary Armageddon-like studies had primed the journalism pumps and settled the media framing about the future ...
dead bee desolate city

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’

The media call it the “Insect Apocalypse”. In the past three years, the phrase has become an accepted truth of ...
globalmethanebudget globalcarbonproject cropped x

Infographic: Cows cause climate change? Agriculture scientist says ‘belching bovines’ get too much blame

A recent interview by Caroline Stocks, a UK journalist who writes about food, agriculture and the environment, of air quality ...
organic hillside sweet corn x

Organic v conventional using GMOs: Which is the more sustainable farming?

Many consumers spend more for organic food to avoid genetically modified products in part because they believe that “industrial agriculture” ...
benjamin franklin x

Are most GMO safety studies funded by industry?

The assertion that biotech companies do the research and the government just signs off on it is false ...
favicon

Environmental Working Group: EWG challenges safety of GMOs, food pesticide residues

Known by some as the "Environmental Worrying Group," EWG lobbies for tighter GMO legislation and famously puts out annual "dirty dozen" list of fruits and ...
m hansen

Michael Hansen: Architect of Consumers Union ongoing anti-GMO campaign

Michael K. Hansen (born 1956) is thought by critics to be the prime mover behind the ongoing campaign against agricultural biotechnology at Consumer Reports. He is an ...
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend