The Royal Baby and Genetic Privacy

Is it a problem to learn your ancestry from a newspaper story?

Earlier this week, much of the world was thrilled by the birth of George Alexander Louis to the couple William Arthur Philip Louis Mountbatten-Windsor and Catherine Elizabeth, nee Middleton. Evidently the newborn stands third in line to be monarch of the rump remains of the British Empire. Given the celebrity of his parents and lineage, George Alexander Louis can expect little in the way of privacy.

A recent publicity stunt shows that the lack of privacy will extend even to his genetic makeup and heritage. In June the prestigious London Times published a front-page story in which it revealed "the Indian ancestry of William." The person second in line to the monarchy apparently has a multi-ethnic heritage. The Telegraph reported one of the more oddball reactions to the findings:

Indian commentator Swapan Dasgupta said the discovery of Indian DNA in the prince had righted an historical wrong. Most of India's invaders and occupiers, including the Aryans and the Mughals, had eventually become Indian, except the British. "They came as foreigners but got absorbed. I'm happy the Indian strain remains in the British monarchy. India may have been lost [to Britain], but an Indian remains," he said.

The Times story was based on some genealogical and genetic sleuthing by BritainsDNA. The genetic testing company traced out the genealogy of Diana Spencer, the royal baby's grandmother, and found that six generations back one set of her ancestors consisted of an East India Company merchant named Theodore Forbes and his wife Eliza Kewark. Kewark was a native of the Indian city of Surat, where her family identified their ethnic heritage as Armenian. To make a long story short, one of the couple's children, a daughter, moved to Scotland, married a local, had kids, and so on down the generations until the birth celebrated earlier this week.

The company's genealogical research identified a couple of distant relatives who, like Diana, are also direct matrilineal descendants of Eliza. The two agreed to contribute their DNA for testing—all matrilineal descendants of Eliza would carry her mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondria, the tiny power plants inside cells, have their own small and distinctive set of genes, which are inherited mostly unchanged from a person's mother. The company found that the cousins' mitochondria belonged to the rare haplogroup R30b, which so far has been found only in people living in South Asia. If the cousins carry that type of mitochondria, then so too would Diana and her children.

Other tests indicated that the genetic makeup of the cousins was also about 0.3 percent and 0.8 percent South Asian. The rest of their DNA was of European origin.

Of course, George Alexander Louis has inherited his mitochondria from his mother and so will not carry Eliza Kewark's R30b version. Nevertheless, the folks at BritainsDNA suggested that it's "very likely" that William's progeny will carry a trace of subcontinental DNA. Perhaps, but more likely not. There is a big difference between genealogical ancestry and genetic ancestry. Ten generations back, a person has 1,024 genealogical ancestors, but given the vagaries of genetic recombination and sexual reproduction it is likely that each person has inherited his or her genes from only about 120 of them.

Diana Spencer's cousins are seventh-generation descendants of Eliza Kewark who have inherited a tiny proportion of their DNA from her. Subsequent recombination then may have taken George Alexander Louis' eight-generation grandmother's DNA completely out of his genetic makeup. I'm sure that BritainsDNA would be happy to offer free testing should the family be interested in the issue.

Naturally, some observers worried that BritainsDNA and The Times violated the family's genetic privacy.  Over at the New Statesman, reporter Alex Hern asked, "Are there ethical lapses in the Times' story on William's 'Indian ancestry'?" Noting the questionable issue that The Times published a discount coupon for genetic testing from BritainsDNA alongside the report, Hern added: "There is a wider issue at stake here, which is that the story reveals information about the genetic make-up of someone who has not consented to any DNA tests" (emphasis his). He continues: "Our DNA is the most basic data we have. No one should have to find out what it contains by looking at the front-page of a newspaper."

With regard to those involved in the publicity stunt, Philippa Brice at the Britain-based bioethical think tank, the Foundation for Genomics and Population Health, declared that "their ethical position is highly questionable." She added, "This example shows that public disclosure of genealogical information based on DNA can in some cases prove potentially distressing (or at least, annoying) to non-consenting family members." Some people may be more than just distressed by unconsented revelations about their genetic heritage—say, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

In the royal baby's case, both Brice and Hern acknowledge that the revelations are trivial. But what if the gene sleuths had uncovered and reported finding genetic variants that are associated with an increased risk of some serious disease? As someone who has posted his genetic information online, my first reaction is: So what? (For what it's worth, my mitochondrial haplogroup happens to be U5a2a.) After all, everybody carries gene variants that increase or reduce their risks of various diseases. It's no big deal. (In my case, I have some variants that suggest a higher risk for macular degeneration and Crohn's disease and less risk for Alzheimer's and melanoma.)

Even Brice appears to more or less agree with me. "Genetic exceptionalism is the belief that genetic information is special and deserving of greater considerations of consent to and privacy of sequencing and analysis than any other form of medical data," she notes. "In fact, genetic information is for the large part much more innocuous than other forms of personal medical data." Correct.

Nevertheless, some analysts argue that surreptitious genetic testing should be illegal. Elizabeth Joh, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, wants to make the nonconsensual collecting and testing of a person's genetic material into the crime of DNA theft. She offers scenarios in which surreptitious genetic testing could be used by a politician to reveal a rival's disease risks, determine an athlete's chances of heart problems before offering him a contract, publicize a personal enemy's predispositions to alcoholism or obesity, check a romantic partner for possibly deleterious genes that could be passed on to progeny, or satisfy a creepy fan's interest in a celebrity's genetic makeup.

Joh's examples do sound disturbing, but the plain fact is that as genetic testing gets cheaper and more widely available people will become more comfortable with what it does and does not reveal. Consent will often be beside the point. Politicians will post their genetic test results online just as they now release their medical records. Prudent team owners will insist on genetic tests in addition to comprehensive physicals before signing up athletes to multi-million-dollar contracts. Personal enemies may well try to undermine one another by posting genetic information online, but that will surely be less damaging than run-of-the-mill backstabbing gossip is today. Couples contemplating children will eagerly seek out genetic information to find out possible risks. Celebrities will sell bits of their DNA along with their full genetic readouts online to fans.

That being said, some folks now may well not want to find out information about their genetic makeup from reading the morning's headlines. When it comes their DNA, others may want to invoke the principle of self-ownership, that is, the moral right to bodily integrity and exclusive control of your own body and life.

As it happens, in November 2012 the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues issued a report, Privacy and Progress in Whole Genome Sequencing, that analyzed issues relating to genetic privacy. The commission recommended that states and the federal government set a consistent set of standards protecting genetic privacy. Those policies, the commission stressed, "should protect individual privacy by prohibiting unauthorized whole genome sequencing without the consent of the individual from whom the sample came."

While I have some sympathy for folks currently worried about their genetic privacy, I want to remind them that their genetic information is not some especially vital or dangerous kind of fact or knowledge about themselves. Such privacy regulations will needlessly reinforce unscientific notions of "genetic exceptionalism" among the public. And since the sorts of rules recommended by the commission have the habit of metastasizing into malignant bureaucracies (think here of HIPAA privacy regulations), I predict that most of us will regret adopting such a prohibition sooner rather than later.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • creech||

    "While I have some sympathy for folks currently worried about their genetic privacy, I want to remind them that their genetic information is not some especially vital or dangerous kind of fact or knowledge about themselves."
    True, but there are still too many morons out there who think you deserve to be treated as your great great grandfather deserved to be treated instead of being treated as you deserve to be treated.

  • ||

    What?

  • jeanmorita||

    up to I looked at the receipt which said $7068, I be certain that...my... father in law woz like realie receiving money in their spare time at there labtop.. there friends cousin has done this for only about seventeen months and just took care of the debts on their apartment and purchased themselves a Lotus Esprit. this is where I went,www.Rush60.ℂℴm

  • Hugh Akston||

    As someone who has posted his genetic information online, my first reaction is: So what?

    As someone who hasn't posted his genetic information online, and has no intention of doing so, I may have a different reaction.

    Consent will often be beside the point.

    Warty will be delighted to hear that.

  • Aresen||

    Ugh.

    The less I hear about that dysfunctional family of uppercrust parasites in costume dress, the better.

  • Pro Libertate||

    They're your gods, right? You have to pray to them and stuff?

  • Aresen||

    If I have to have a God-Emperor, I prefer an Atreides. Or even a Palpatine.

    This crew makes Rufus Firefly look dignified.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I know exactly how you feel, even though we lack even your nominal tie to the fools. See, we have our own stupid "elites" to contend with.

  • ||

    We're all missing the point, which is how inbred is the baby?

  • Hugh Akston||

    He rates approximately .767 on the SugarFree scale.

  • ||

    But that's...that's more than you! That's the closest anyone's been to NutraSweet's perfect 1.0 since Warty was assumed to be human!

  • SugarFree||

    My bloodline is pure, mongrel.

  • PH2050||

    My bloodline is pure mongrel.

  • Nando||

    George Alexander.
    Jason Alexander played George Costanza

    Louis?

    Julia-Louis Dreyfuss?

    the royals are Seinfeld fans!

  • ||

    Not only that, but George's full name was George Louis Costanza.

  • ||

    Maybe it's part of a plot to get India to accept British rule again.

  • ||

    Or, it's an excuse for George Alexander to claim minority status on his college application.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Haha! The British have kings and queens, princes, princesses. Do they have wizards, elves, trolls, and strapping woodsmen, too? What a bunch of jerks.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The wizards, elves and trolls all disappeared when the quest to bring the one ring to Parliament succeeded.

  • PH2050||

    Parliament = Sauron, yes?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    There is a special danger of privacy regulations; the State will almost certainly exempt the State. That being the case, privacy regulations won't keep your genetic information private from the people most likely to misuse it. And, face it, once the State has the information it will pass it to any of its favorites that ask for it, and will act all outraged if called on that.

  • Jose Chung||

    My concern re: complete genetic sequencing is the potential for political abuse. With the consolidation of health databases due to the Affordable Care Act and the likely introduction of a single payer, nationalized healthcare system once the design of the ACA renders private insurance non-viable, we face a return to progressive era government meddling in people's reproductive choices. The hideous SCOTUS decision in Buck v. Bell was never overturned, even though Eugenics has largely fallen into disfavor. While I applaud Ron's optimism on this topic, I fear that it might be misplaced.

  • Michael Price||

    You don't have a right to privacy in someone else's genetic information, or in preventing someone talking about the implications for your genetic information. Nobody tested anyone without their consent. What they did was talk about genetic facts about individuals that were deducible from facts gained consensually. To ban talking about someone's genetics based on "privacy" is because _if the information had been gained by testing the individuals_ it would have required consent is madness. It was not gained by testing the individuals but by testing others related to them. Neither WIlliam nor George Montbatten-Windsor have a right to stop me talking about the genetics of someone else, including the right to talk about the implications that information has for their genetics.

    Imagine if I have a genetic test that shows that I am predisposed to depression. Does my brother have the right to forbid someone saying "that means his brother has a 50% chance of the same predisposition"? How about early heart disease? Can the fact that my DNA says I'm vulnerable be stricken from any conversation about my sister? If so then why can family histories showing the same thing be publicly discussed?

    There is nothing ethically questionable about talking about someone's DNA based on consensually gained test results. You don't get to censor what people say about you merely because you wouldn't have done the test yourself.

  • DAK||

    Quite apart from the issue of whether or not Prince William should have given his consent, there is actually a bigger concern relating to this story. The scientific "research" has never actually been published anywhere other than in a press release. There is no proof that Prince William actually has any Indian DNA. The satirical magazine Private Eye has picked up on this issue:

    http://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/2.....ndian.html

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement