Minnesota Law Review

Note, Relative Futility:Limits to Genetic Privacy Protection Because of the Inability to Prevent Disclosure of Genetic Information by Relatives

The Note considers possible limits to reasonable expectations of genetic privacy given that people share their DNA sequences with their relatives. Most scholars and members of the general public believe that an individual’s DNA sequence is an intensely personal matter and that access to this information should be tightly controlled. The Note considers both legal means by which it might be possible to protect genetic privacy, including recent statutory approaches such as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and reasons why individuals might want to keep genetic information private. It also examines situations in which genetic privacy might have negative consequences, as when keeping genetic information confidential might prevent relatives from being tested or treated for diseases for which they are also at risk. The Note also examines limits to genetic privacy, including the fact that genetic information is a shared attribute with DNA sequences shared by relatives, and technologies that have increased the ability to identify the source of DNA samples obtained for research and forensic purposes.

The Note argues that, rather than focusing attention on attempts to protect genetic privacy itself, legislative efforts should instead be directed toward preventing the greater harm of genetic discrimination in employment and insurance settings. It suggests that one way to halt improper uses of personal genetic information would, by analogy to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, allow individuals to determine who had obtained access to their personal genetic information and the reasons this access had been sought. By bringing uses of genetic information into the open, individuals should be empowered to reduce the use of genetic information for discriminatory purposes, even if complete confidentiality cannot be maintained.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Volume 97 Lead Piece Profiled in New York Times

    The Volume 97 Lead Piece, a study of how the Supreme Court treats business interests by distinguished legal scholars Lee Epstein, William M. Landes, and Richard A. Posner, was profiled in the May 5, 2013 edition of the New York Times. The story, titled Corporations Find a Friend in the Supreme Court, [...]

  • Volume 98 Spring Submissions Closed

    The Minnesota Law Review has closed the spring submissions period for Volume 98. Submissions for Volume 98 will reopen on Thursday, August 1. Please see the submissions page for more details.

  • Volume 98 Submissions Will Open Feb. 15

    The Minnesota Law Review will begin accepting submissions for Volume 98 on Friday, February 15, 2013. Please see this page for more details.

  • Minnesota Law Review Announces Volume 98 Editorial Board

    The Minnesota Law Review is pleased to announce its Volume 98 editorial board, headed by Editor in Chief Jake Vandelist.

  • Minnesota Law Review Announces 2013 Symposium Topic

    The Minnesota Law Review is pleased to announce that its 2013 symposium will address the legal and political issues facing organized labor in the United States. The symposium will be held at the University of Minnesota Law School on October 25, 2013.

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days