The Case for Paternalism in Genetic Testing
By Laura Hercher,
Wired
| 01. 14. 2013
“So,” the journalist interviewing me asked, “you are for paternalism, then?”
Pause. I feel the linguistic walls closing in on me. Are you for paternalism? Are you against life? When did you stop beating your wife?
The case against paternalism in genetics is a cause célèbre among many scientists and science writers. The argument generally paints a picture of the medical professional as some sort of hybrid nanny-thug, protecting consenting adults from viewing their own genomes as though they were small children begging to play with knives, and at the same time fighting a bare-knuckle brawl with DTC companies to defend their turf as the only legitimate explicators of medical significance (because fortunes ride on the right to explain complex inheritance patterns and probability to the worried well. Please.).
The genome is not such a scary place and we have a right to our own genetic information. This case is made by many, including
Virginia Hughes at Slate and
Razib Khan at Discover and
Daniel MacArthur at Wired. These arguments are smart, well-written, ethically unassailable to a point –...
Related Articles
By Annika Inampudi, Science | 07.10.2025
Before a baby in the United States reaches a few days old, doctors will run biochemical tests on a few drops of their blood to catch certain genetic diseases that need immediate care to prevent brain damage or other serious...
By Geoffrey A. Fowler, The Washington Post | 07.17.2025
Nearly 2 million people protected their privacy by deleting their DNA from 23andMe after it declared bankruptcy in March. Now it’s back with the same person in charge — and I still don’t trust it.
Nor do the attorneys general...
By Elizabeth Dwoskin and Yeganeh Torbati, The Washington Post | 07.16.2025
A group of well-heeled, 30-something women sat down to dinner last spring at a table set with pregnancy-friendly mocktails and orchids, ready to hear a talk about how to optimize their offspring.
Noor Siddiqui, the founder of an embryo-screening start-up...
By Suzanne O'Sullivan, New Scientist | 07.09.2025
Rare diseases are often hard to spot. They can evade detection until irreversible organ damage or disability has already set in. Last month, in the hope of preventing just this type of harm, the UK’s health secretary, Wes Streeting, announced...