Plus: Airbnb will host 20,000 Afghan refugees, court rejects Nunes lawsuit against Liz Mair, and more..
That horse has left the barn.
New technologies mean new crimesolving techniques—and new threats to privacy and liberty.
"If my kids lived in Africa, I'd say, 'Go for it as quickly as possible,'" says researcher.
If Times editors don't want to learn about their genetics, then they simply shouldn't take the tests.
When genetic testing results become a tool for law enforcement
There is no compelling ethical reason to limit this exercise of reproductive liberty.
Is it genes, or have we "started building a stupidity-inducing environment"?
A bioethicist argues that the genetic testing company is fostering pseudoscientific bigotry by urging customers to pick a soccer team based on their ancestry.
The Silicon Valley entrepreneur says cryptocurrencies, virtual reality, and mobile devices are helping individuals escape failed institutions.
Worried about your genetic privacy? Then don't take the tests.
FDA head Scott Gottlieb overturns Obama's ban on direct-to-consumer genetic testing.
Destroying the idea of racial purity one tiki torcher at a time
A work-around for the FDA's ban on direct-to-consumer genetic testing?
Bioethicists in Britain say yes. But there are no such limits in the U.S. yet.
Even if genetic testing is just brightly colored signage, it still has the potential to improve health outcomes.
Still forbidden to tell customers nearly 90 percent of what the company used to be able to share
I don't want to have a "conversation" with regulators; I want them to get the hell out of the way
It's way too early to start putting people like me in jail based on our genomes
Go slow and let more people suffer and die
A scitech research and policy roundup for January 6, 2016
I'm a bioethicist, and I am here to help slow down scientific and medical progress
George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen suggests that it might be.
"If scientists can dream of a genetic manipulation, CRISPR can now make it happen"
Agency still treats consumers like idiots
Let us decide for ourselves if genetic ignorance is bliss.
Since such bans are largely unenforceable, the measure is more mechanism for pro-life political signaling than anything else.
Is it immoral to slow progress toward curing diseases and creating more environmentally benign products?
Is life better than death; health better disease; wealth better than poverty? Opinions vary.
Is progress itself an ethical obligation? Opinions vary.
A pretty good way to discourage people from using gene testing services
The FDA disagrees and prefers ignorance
Testing company 23andMe expresses its gratitude