The next presidential candidates will face an electorate that is radically more conversant in and curious about DNA than ever before. We should reasonably expect that the presidential election of 2012 will include, for the first time, requests for candidates to make their genetic information part of the public record.

Should the candidates heed these requests?

In an article published today in the New England Journal of Medicine, Robert Green and George Annas advocate for the next presidential candidates to honor a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for DNA. If genetic information is invoked by either candidate, the authors argue, the outcome will almost surely be one of exaggerated claims:

“…in the world of inflammatory accusations and smears that characterize presidential politics, it would be easy to engage in what might be called “genetic McCarthyism” by implying that an increased risk of disease is more substantial than it really is.”

The issue of presidential DNA and who gets access to it, is here to stay. 2012 presidential hopefuls have a few years to work out their talking points.

What would your talking points be? Would requests for disclosure of genetic information affect your decision to run for public office? Could you imagine scenarios where genetic information might influence your decision to vote for one candidate over another?

This week I’ll be interviewing Robert Green to learn more about his views on the future role, or absence, of genetics in political campaigns. Comments are open.

–

Green, Robert C., Annas, George J. The Genetic Privacy of Presidential Candidates. N Engl J Med 2008 359: 2192-2193.

Listen to mp3 here.

Details on how to tune in to this October 24th broadcast.

Update: Listen to the archived show now.

Scot Yount. Researchers intend to build online DNA database. NECN, October 21, 2008.

“Taking a Peek at the Experts’ Genetic Secrets” by Amy Harmon, The New York Times

“Personal Genome Project Participants Get First Look at their DNA” by Carey Goldberg, Boston Globe

“Subjects’ DNA Secrets to be Revealed” by Carey Goldberg, Boston Globe

“Genome Fanatics to Post Own DNA Sequences on Web” by Denise Lavoie, Associated Press

“Harvard Genome Volunteers Say They’ll Reveal Own DNA” by John Lauerman, Bloomberg News

“Genomes on Display” by Emily Singer, Technology Review

“Thousands Volunteer to Expose DNA Secrets to the World” by Ewen Callaway, New Scientist

“Sharing Your Personal Genetic Map With the World” by Nancy Shute, U.S. News & World Report

“A New Sort of Facebook: Posting Your Genes on the Web” by Sarah Rubenstein, Wall Street Journal blog entry

“Genome Database Will Link Genes, Traits in Public View” by Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post

“10 Bay Staters to Post DNA Online” by Sacha Pfeiffer, WBUR (NPR’s Boston affiliate)

“Meet my genome: 10 people release their DNA on the Web” by Susannah F. Locke, Scientific American online

“Personal genome sequences could herald a shift in research participation” by Erika Check Hayden, Nature News

“Genetic Privacy: An Outdated Concern?” by Emily Singer, Technology Review

“9 Volunteers in Harvard Study Agree to Post Their Personal Genomes Online” by David DeBolt, Chronicle of Higher Education

“For the greater good, ten pioneers will post their genomes on the Internet,” Discover magazine blog post

“Volunteers unveil DNA, medical data in push for everyday gene sequencing” by Alvin Powell, Harvard News Office

“A Molecular Full Monty” by Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe

I’ll post commentary over the next week. Articles are also slowly being posted on the PGP news page. If I’ve missed any articles, leave me a comment or drop me a line.

To listen, please see:
Harvard Medical Labcast, Episode 6: Your genome, your future. [mp3 or subscribe via iTunes] The PGP-related material begins around the 9:30 mark.

Misha also draws attention to one under appreciated aspect of obtaining a personal DNA sequence: there’s more to genomics than personalized medicine. Genomics might also be interesting and worthwhile even without obvious direct benefits.

“If you’re interested in medicine, you should talk to your doctor,” [George Church] says. “But if you’re interested in seeing a revolution close up and participating in research, then you should [be free to] mess around.”

Sober-faced enthusiasts may be the bootstraps necessary for the field of personal genomics to achieve lift-off. According to Misha:

“This is where we are in the era of personal genomics: some modest amusement, a few interesting tidbits, a bit of useful information, but mostly the promise of much better things to come. The more people are allowed–encouraged, even–to experiment, the sooner that promise can be realized.”

If amateur enthusiasts can make contributions to nuclear fusion (see video), why not personal genomics?

Read the article.

–

Misha Angrist. Personal Genomics: Access Denied? Even if we can’t interpret the data, consumers have a right to their genomes. MIT Tech Review. September/October 2008

See, Misha’s blog GenomeBoy.com

See, PGP-10 profiles

In the interview, Esther gives her views on the history of commerce on the internet, problems with health care as we know it in the U.S., and the future of genetics.

Interviews with David Agus, Co-Founder, Navigenics, Dean Ornish, President, Preventive Medicine Research Institute and George Church of Harvard Medical School’s Personal Genome Project.

Previously on Charlie Rose, Esther Dyson discusses her participation in the PGP. See also, an interview with Francis Collins.

Thomas Goetz, “The Gene Collector” Wired Magazine, August 2008.