Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Should Genetic Trophy Hunting Be Outlawed?
And what about testing residues from your spouse's underwear without his or her permission? The latter falls under the rubric of "infidelity testing" as a new article in the New Scientist explains. Last month, in my column "Exposing Obama's Genome," I looked at how celebrity genetic testing might occur and what, if anything, should be done about it. I concluded that, for the most part, such genetic trophy hunting, while mildly titillating for some fans, is unlikely to be a big deal.
But what if a celebrity, or for that matter your spouse, objects to surreptitious genetic testing? Britain outlawed such sneaky testing back in 2006. There is no federal law against such testing, but some states do prohibit it. For example, New York state makes it illegal to perform genetic tests or disclose results without the consent of the person being tested. However, as the New Scientist reports:
Test Infidelity [a company located in Chatsworth, Calif.] is just one of dozens of US companies offering to test DNA taken without the knowledge of the people concerned. Many firms advertise infidelity testing services or offer "discreet" paternity tests. These allow a man to determine whether he is the father of a child without letting anyone else know what he is up to, or a woman to tell whether a man is the father of her child without involving him in the process.
While the total number of stealthy DNA tests being conducted is unclear, interviews with genetic testing companies indicate that thousands are being run each year in the US alone.
Paternity testing can tear otherwise stable families apart. But the good news is that recent data suggests that 98 percent of the time the children that men are rearing are their genetic offspring. On the other hand, 30 percent of men who seek out paternity testing find out that they are right to be suspicious.
I suspect that the push to ban stealthy paternity testing will disappear as genetic testing of all newborns becomes widespread and routine.
The New Scientist article focuses on paternity testing because it clearly does have the potential to disrupt families. As for infidelity testing, it doesn't seem much different than hiring a detective to uncover a spouse's trysts. Evidently, the sources quoted by the New Scientist couldn't think of any great harm that would come from testing the DNA of celebrities. So should genetic trophy hunting be outlawed? After all, a breakfast half-eaten by Obama--touted as having "His DNA is on the silverware."-- was sold on eBay for 99 cents last spring. My guess is that fan-testing of celebrity DNA will become just another minor irritation, like paparazzis, that come with fame.
Note: Although I am pretty much the opposite of a celebrity, anyone who wants to test the random DNA I shed as I go about my life is free to do so.
sage|1.23.09 @ 1:36PM|#
My guess is that fan-testing of celebrity DNA will become
just another minor irritation, like paparazzis, that come with
fame.
Guess again. I'm the one that got that great deal on His DNA, and
my clone of the president is coming along nicely.
|1.23.09 @ 1:43PM|#
Bans on genetic engineering will gradually fade too as people realize you can already do selective breeding with artificial insemination and other fertility aids. People already pick sperm donors with the genetic characteristics they want, before long they will be testing embryos and selecting one for sex or health. This will get more common as people have kids later in life more often.
Kolohe|1.23.09 @ 1:43PM|#
BTW, does anyone know where I can get the DNA of Scarlett
Johansson?
The Island?
Syd|1.23.09 @ 1:48PM|#
But the good news is that recent data suggests that 98
percent of the time the children that men are rearing are their
genetic offspring.
I assume that doesn't count adopted fathers.
At one point, the figure was 90%, but I don't think that was a
scientific survey. Maybe people are being honest, or there just
isn't as much pressure for a woman to find a husband when she gets
pregnant.
|1.23.09 @ 1:54PM|#
That link goes to Dvdbeaver. WTF?
I works for me. WTF? I will try and remedy this.
And yes, DVDbeaver.com is the new rickroll. God, what an ugly front
page.
|1.23.09 @ 1:55PM|#
Huh. Well, when I first clicked on Episiarch's link, I didn't get the picture. So I linked to the picture of the Hitler clone kid from The Boys from Brazil. I am otherwise unfamiliar with this DVDbeaver of which you speak. Sounds strangely obscene.
Kolohe|1.23.09 @ 1:58PM|#
Bailey's disclaimer reminds me of something alluded to in the
Edge.org article linked earlier this week.
The presence of ubitiquous cameras in the public sphere a la 1984
is now technically feasible - in fact, rather trivially easy. The
only thing slowly down their implementation is the social
resistence caused by everyone being consiously aware of Orwell's
novel.
I would think in a few decades it won't be all that difficult to
gather all the DNA in any and all public spaces and build a
database from this collection. However, I do not see the same
intuitive opposition emerging to this the way it did for CCTV. The
current status of (american) law makes this perfectly legal as well
(for intance, as far as know, agents of the state can root around
anyone's garbage can wily nilly)
|1.23.09 @ 2:07PM|#
Really? You don't find it troublesome that someone could take your DNA, have it tested, and then leak that you have the genetic propensity for (insert nasty disease here). . . ?
Naga Sadow|1.23.09 @ 2:08PM|#
Oooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Cloned Hitlers. Got it.
Pro Lib,
Sounds strangely obscene? Doesn't have to be if your looking for
beaver . . . dvd that is.
|1.23.09 @ 2:08PM|#
Episiarch,
I decided to run
The Wizard of Oz version of the
Darth Hillary demotivator series. Since it was your idea, I
thought I should tell you.
|1.23.09 @ 2:13PM|#
Very nice, ProL. Now do the "Existential Blues" version.
"In fact, he said, I'd rather have this bottle in front of
me...than...A FRONTAL LOBOTOMY!"
"How profound, wizard."
|1.23.09 @ 2:46PM|#
People already pick sperm donors with the genetic
characteristics they want, ...
Isn't this process called dating?
Jeff P|1.23.09 @ 3:02PM|#
I have been offering to give free genetic samples to many ladies
in my neighborhood for years, but no takers.
Julio my hair-stylist on the other hand...
|1.23.09 @ 3:06PM|#
So let me get this straight... As it is, there's a 98% chance that I'm the father of my wife's daughter. But if get a paternity test, the odds of her being my daughter drop to 70%? I mean, the statistics bear that out, right? Crazy...
Naga Sadow|1.23.09 @ 3:07PM|#
Jeff P,
If we're talking neighboHOod chicks this is what you do. Walk down
the street with friend of yours that is at least 4 inches taller
than you and outweighs you by about 50 pounds. Crack him in the
back of the head with a lead pipe and start screaming at him that
"I told you! I told you!". Go into hiding for a few days. Women
will flock to you after you reappear in your neighborhood.
|1.23.09 @ 3:14PM|#
ClubMedSux,
It's a self-selection bias. Those men who think they need a
paternity test bad enough to actually get one are more likely than
the general population to have a wife/mother of child who has been
lying to them (or confused about paternity.)
D.A. Ridgely|1.23.09 @ 3:35PM|#
Note: Although I am pretty much the opposite of a celebrity, anyone who wants to test the random DNA I shed as I go about my life is free to do so.
Some of us would have frankly preferred it if you didn't shed quite
so much in the first place.
(I keed, I keed!)
|1.23.09 @ 4:02PM|#
Sugarfree- I guess I need to be a little more obvious when I make fun of our society's general inability to understand/apply statistics...
sage|1.23.09 @ 4:15PM|#
Sorry, my genetic samples are all being used to breed
another successor.
Enjoy that while you can. Soon women won't even need us to breed.
They'll simply be able to take their own DNA and inject it into one
of their eggs, creating an exact copy containing only the mother's
traits. I refer to this as masturbation taken to its logical
conclusion.
The Taliban™|1.23.09 @ 4:20PM|#
They'll simply be able to take their own DNA and inject it
into one of their eggs
See? This is what happens when you educate them.
|1.23.09 @ 4:21PM|#
"for intance, as far as know, agents of the state can root
around anyone's garbage can wily nilly)"
depends on the state. in WA state, under an independent ground
reading of our state constitution, which mentions an explicit right
to privacy, state (county, city) cannot do so.
under the federal constitution, it is permissible (no right to
"privacy", but a prohibition on unreasonable searches and
seizures).
kinnath|1.23.09 @ 4:46PM|#
CMS: take a random sample of a very large population and you see
that 98% of the kids were fathered by their father.
For a very much smaller population (families with father who doubt
the kids are his) only 70% of the time the kids are his.
Got it?
|1.23.09 @ 4:46PM|#
I think a dude has a right to know if he's raising a cuckoo; how
much family angst is derived from that doubt?
And sage, isn't mating with yourself the ultimate, not in
masturbation, but incest?
|1.23.09 @ 4:52PM|#
"Soon women won't even need us to breed. They'll simply be able
to take their own DNA and inject it into one of their eggs,
creating an exact copy containing only the mother's traits."
the delicious irony will be telling the copies that they are "just
like their mother"
The Wine Commonsewer|1.23.09 @ 5:00PM|#
May not still be true, but in Californicate if you are married
to the woman when the kid is born, it's yours to pay child support
for. Whether it is your genetic child or not.
And, Dude, if you find suspicious substances in your girl's undies,
you don't need a test lab to tell you the answer you already
know.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.23.09 @ 5:03PM|#
In fact, he said, I'd rather have this bottle in front of me...than...A FRONTAL LOBOTOMY!
That's pre-frontal.......and it was Tom Waits
sage|1.23.09 @ 6:33PM|#
And sage, isn't mating with yourself the ultimate, not in
masturbation, but incest?
No. A child born of incest has a mother and father. No such luck
here.
..|1.23.09 @ 6:47PM|#
A child born of incest has a mother and father
What about the child born of anal intercourse?
Shadow of the Past|1.23.09 @ 10:26PM|#
Paternity testing can tear otherwise stable families
apart.
Maybe mommy should have thought of that before she spread her legs
for the Orkin man.
sage|1.24.09 @ 9:12AM|#
What about the child born of anal intercourse?
You trying to trace your family tree or something?
|1.24.09 @ 4:08PM|#
Slightly drunk
Gelnmorangie
good shit
but here's a basic rule
If a science is prefixed by the word genetic
its good!
Don't get me wrong I hate the American left as much as the next
man
But man I fuckin Hate Conservatives
what is with that whole anti-Darwinist shit
|1.24.09 @ 4:15PM|#
Genetic engineering rocks
There's not a huge difference between rubber
(the shit that grows on trees)
and the polymers, derived from hydrocarbons, that make up the
majority of human materials consumption
We should be working towards some baass genetic engineering
shit
There's a fucking unholy alliance between christian fundamentalists
and gaybo lefties
(who are probably the children of the same bible bashing
fuckwits)
|1.24.09 @ 4:20PM|#
Genetic engineering rocks more than Australians
which is saying something
Australians are probably the greatest group of people on the
planet!
Aussies wrote the song "down under"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNT7uZf7lew
and they are down under
technically
|1.24.09 @ 4:27PM|#
So any way
Brief Summary
My Misus is gonna get back from work in an hour and I need to sober
up
Australians rock
one more great tune from the land of OZ
www.youtube.com/watch?v=10BbpGKLXqk
The left are fucking horrible
nearly as horrible as the right
and GM feking rocks
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245