GENTECH archive
[Index][Thread]
Ethical genetics
- To: gentech@data.free.de
- Subject: Ethical genetics
- From: Epstein <namofo@jps.net>
- Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 15:20:00 -0800
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
- Resent-From: gentech@data.free.de
- Resent-Message-ID: <"GC9BTC.A.n-G.Ev5O2"@data.free.de>
- Resent-Sender: gentech-request@data.free.de
>From HMS Beagle Letters to the Editor Oct. 30, 1998
<http://biomednet.com/hmsbeagle/41/people/letters.htm>:
Ethical genetics
In the opinion article entitled Opportunity, Not
Exploitation, the author, Kari Stefansson, president and
chief executive of deCODE Genetics, paints an idyllic
picture of a benign and fruitful collaboration between a
genomics company and the population of Iceland.
However, we wish to inform your readers about a
bitter controversy that has arisen in Iceland over the
plans of deCODE Genetics.
The origin of the dispute is a government bill,
introduced at the initiative of deCODE, which would
allow the Icelandic Ministry of Health to license a
company to compile a database containing medical
records of all Icelanders, together with genetic and
genealogical information. The bill allows the licensee
exclusive rights to the commercial exploitation of the
data for 12 years.
The exact purpose of the database has never been made
very clear. According to the company's recent
"non-confidential corporate summary" and their Web
site, the applications would include research into
hereditary diseases, and thus enable deCODE's clients,
who will be mainly drug companies, to develop and
test new products. Insurance companies are also
mentioned as possible clients. A number of secondary
uses are envisaged, such as providing management
information to the health service.
Needless to say, the only contender for the license is
deCODE Genetics. Furthermore, the presentation of the
bill to the public has been almost entirely in the hands
of deCODE, which has acquired the trust of the public
by painting a rosy picture of the benefits and belittling
the bill's opponents.
Initial opposition to the bill was mainly among the
medical and university community, but it is now
spreading throughout the more informed sections of
society. Over forty Icelandic bodies have sent the
Icelandic government their opinion of the bill. These
include the Medical Association, the Medical Faculty
of the University, the Data Protection Commission, the
Consumer Association, the Science Research Council,
and many others. Almost all are highly critical of the
bill's provisions, and many reject it completely. A
number of non-Icelandic scientists and bodies have
also written to the Icelandic government expressing
concern. These include the Data Protection
Commissioners of the EU and EES, Professor Henry
Greely of Stanford University, and Professor
Marie-Claire King of the University of Washington.
The main concerns are the following:
(1) Consent and ethical review - the bill only allows
for people to opt out of the database, but does not to
give any other form of consent. At the same time, there
is to be no ethical or scientific review of the
applications, commercial or scientific, that the licensee
may undertake with the data. This is at odds with
accepted practice regarding research on human
subjects.
(2) Confidentiality and privacy - the bill designates the
database as anonymous, but legal experts have pointed
out that the database as described in the bill consists of
personal information, which, though de-identified, will
not be anonymous. An expert in computer security has
reviewed the plans of deCODE and concluded that
privacy is far from being adequate (see the report of
Ross Anderson). This is at odds with Stefansson's
pious claim in the article that the systems used by
deCODE are "the best in the world for protecting
privacy."
(3) Monopoly and scientific openness - if deCODE
succeeds in putting together this database, they will
control virtually all the information needed for medical
or genetic research in Iceland. The bill stipulates that
(Icelandic) scientists may be granted access to the data,
provided they work for institutions that contribute data
(this would exclude the University of Iceland) and also
provided that their research plans do not interfere with
the commercial objectives of the licensee. The
commercial objectives of deCODE are known to be
very wide. It is feared that scientists who do not wish
to collaborate with deCODE will find it much harder to
raise research funds. This was referred to in an
editorial in the October issue of Nature Genetics as
"collaborate or die."
We would be most grateful if you could bring this
matter to the attention of your readers.
On behalf of Mannvernd - Association of Icelanders for
Ethical Genetics and Science,
- Laufey Tryggvadottir, secretary of Mannvernd
October 28, 1998
HMS Beagle was aware that the company's work is
controversial. We appreciate the opportunity to
present the other side of the issue.