Genetic Paparazzi Are Right Around the Corner (theconversation.com) 98
Liza Vertinsky, Professor of Law, University of Maryland, and Yaniv Heled, Associate Professor of Law, Georgia State University, writing for The Conversation: Every so often stories of genetic theft, or extreme precautions taken to avoid it, make headline news. So it was with a picture of French President Emmanuel Macron and Russian President Vladimir Putin sitting at opposite ends of a very long table after Macron declined to take a Russian PCR COVID-19 test. Many speculated that Macron refused due to security concerns that the Russians would take and use his DNA for nefarious purposes. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz similarly refused to take a Russian PCR COVID-19 test. While these concerns may seem relatively new, pop star celebrity Madonna has been raising alarm bells about the potential for nonconsensual, surreptitious collection and testing of DNA for over a decade. She has hired cleaning crews to sterilize her dressing rooms after concerts and requires her own new toilet seats at each stop of her tours.
At first, Madonna was ridiculed for having DNA paranoia. But as more advanced, faster and cheaper genetic technologies have reached the consumer realm, these concerns seem not only reasonable, but justified. We are law professors who study how emerging technologies like genetic sequencing are regulated. We believe that growing public interest in genetics has increased the likelihood that genetic paparazzi with DNA collection kits may soon become as ubiquitous as ones with cameras. While courts have for the most part managed to evade dealing with the complexities of surreptitious DNA collection and testing of public figures, they won't be able to avoid dealing with it for much longer. And when they do, they are going to run squarely into the limitations of existing legal frameworks when it comes to genetics.
At first, Madonna was ridiculed for having DNA paranoia. But as more advanced, faster and cheaper genetic technologies have reached the consumer realm, these concerns seem not only reasonable, but justified. We are law professors who study how emerging technologies like genetic sequencing are regulated. We believe that growing public interest in genetics has increased the likelihood that genetic paparazzi with DNA collection kits may soon become as ubiquitous as ones with cameras. While courts have for the most part managed to evade dealing with the complexities of surreptitious DNA collection and testing of public figures, they won't be able to avoid dealing with it for much longer. And when they do, they are going to run squarely into the limitations of existing legal frameworks when it comes to genetics.
Turns out Madonna's Pap smear... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Turns out Madonna's Pap smear... (Score:5, Interesting)
Two major things:
1. It can be used to confirm paternity and genealogy, things like that. For example it would be worth millions to any tabloid or news outlet to find out for example that the kid of a particular celebrity is actually not the husband's or something like that.
2. Theoretically, in the future, when we have figured out a technology called "in-vitro gametogenesis" it can be used to create an offspring (basically a skin cell is turned into a sperm or egg cell and then used to create a baby -- it works in mice already: https://www.science.org/doi/10... [science.org] ). There may be sickos willing to pay millions for something like that. Also, what paternity issues would something like that raise?
Re:Turns out Madonna's Pap smear... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"To that point, I'm not sure what crimes Madonna is covering up, but mass murderers don't even go that far."
How many people tried to kill themselves after seeing "Who's That Girl"? That just might qualify.
Re: (Score:2)
Before we get too paranoid about this particular risk, there is a significant difference in hacking someone's ancestry.com account, and having possession of someone's DNA that is viable and can be used as evidence in our legal system.
...
Seems like the risk they're describing here would be that you steal the celeb's DNA from a dressing room, do your own DNA fingerprinting, and then print a bunch of DNA that matches the fingerprint. You can do all of that with currently available commercial equipment, you don't need anything that doesn't already exist.
Re: (Score:2)
you would never "print" the DNA because the first step of fingerprinting, and almost all DNA work, is to do PCR making millions of copies of your sample.
Re: (Score:3)
>there is a significant difference in hacking someone's ancestry.com account, and having possession of someone's DNA
Not as much as you might think. Mail-ordering viable custom DNA created to order has been pretty routine for years now (e.g. for synthetic biology or genetic engineering experiments).
I think it's not not yet to the length needed to "print" a complete human-sized chromosome, more bacteria and the like, but most modern sequencing (especially the cheap methods) doesn't work with whole chromos
Re: (Score:2)
>there is a significant difference in hacking someone's ancestry.com account, and having possession of someone's DNA
Not as much as you might think. Mail-ordering viable custom DNA created to order has been pretty routine for years now (e.g. for synthetic biology or genetic engineering experiments).
I think it's not not yet to the length needed to "print" a complete human-sized chromosome, more bacteria and the like, but most modern sequencing (especially the cheap methods) doesn't work with whole chromosomes anyway, and it shouldn't be too hard to "print" out a bunch of DNA fragments containing the "fingerprints" you would use to identify an individual.
I'm not sure if you can afford the equipment in a mid-range lab yet, but given that the pace of DNA sequencing and synthesis technology dwarfs Moore's Law, if it's not here yet it's probably not far off.
No need for that. Grab someone's lost hair, and the cells on the follicle can be cultured, grown and planted somewhere, without any need for fancy DNA engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure - it's not exactly hard to get genetic samples from someone (whose been in) the same room you are. Without taking significant precautions we shed DNA laden material wherever we go.
My point though was that so could someone who hacked a DNA database from the other side of the world. It's not quite science fiction anymore, and the technology is improving at an astounding pace.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The answer to both questions is yes, but right now you'll need a loose definition of "something novel." As in you can't change a few things, but not a crazy amount. For example, you can take a single gene for example a popular one is the fluorescent protein from a jellyfish and make a plant that is fluorescent. But to create something that is truly recognizable to somebody as a plant/jellyfish combination is not possible today. There are mice who have been engineered with a human gene called FCGRT so that a
Re: (Score:1)
Immaculate Conception (Score:3)
...it can be used to create an offspring (basically a skin cell is turned into a sperm or egg cell and then used to create a baby
You mean like - a virgin birth?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you could go down the gametogenesis route if you wanted, but if you're creating stem cells from somatic cells (non-gametes), then you've also got the door open to cloning. And you're far more likely to find a paying billionaire who wants to pork a Madonna-clone than who wants
Re: (Score:3)
In the year 2044, genetic engineering has advanced tremendously. Chimera -- humans with DNA from other creatures -- are prowling the streets with feline tails, swimming the oceans with gills, and looking and sounding exactly like celebrities from the previous century.
Using DNA recovered from 1990, a botched experiment to create the sexy clone of a pop singer leaves a disfigured and psychotic woman lurking in the shadowy underworld of the midwest megalopolis of Francisco Angeles, hunting for the scientists
Re: (Score:3)
That's not what a chimera is. A chimera is a multicellular organism composed of irregularly-distributed cells from two (or more) individuals. They already "walk our streets", to use your phrase, ; possibly they have always done so, for longer than we have had streets. Most humans still contain (small) populations of cells derived from their mother's placenta and blood stream, which makes them, technically, chimerae. There is a smaller population of chimeric hum
Re: (Score:2)
Also, what paternity issues would something like that raise?
There was a case recently where a woman used her ex-husband's frozen sperm to get pregnant -against his wishes-, sued for child support, and won.
Re: (Score:1)
There was a case recently where a woman used her ex-husband's frozen sperm to get pregnant -against his wishes-, sued for child support, and won.
The fact that he had sperm frozen at all indicates that he took action in support of producing a child at one point. The fact that he revoked it later doesn't give him a right to dictate his ex-wife's actions, just like a man who gets a woman pregnant through intercourse can't force an abortion to avoid child support. IOW, there's more to that story.
Re: (Score:2)
I mis-read that this time around, and thought you were referring to the Diane Blood case [wikipedia.org], where the woman had her husband's brain-dead body anally raped in order to extract a semen sample. Her fans and lawyers don't like people being reminded of how she treated her husband's corpse [parliament.uk] in order to get pregnant. not in any year of the A very memorable and scary case.
Re: (Score:2)
1) politics - genetic information could be used to suggest that a political leader is not healthy enough for office. In 2008 when McCain was running, there was an obsession over his health and vitality to hold the Oval Office (Biden will be 80 in November). Given the wide public awareness of genetics coupled with the public's significant lack of understanding of genetics, information like this spread through social media can severely hurt a political ca
Re: (Score:2)
All you need today is to collect the DNA from used eating utensils.
Then you can make how many clones you like of Madonna or Donald Trump.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Privacy is a major issue, such as any genetic conditions they made have, or genetic predispositions towards getting certain diseases.
Racists might try to use genetics to prove someone they don't like is unintelligent or something moronic like that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not. There are some ideas for how it might be valuable in the future, but they're all pretty far fetched.
Reading the discussion, most of them seem to involve tabloids and paternity tests. But if I'm a tabloid and I say "Justin Beiber isn't really a Bieber!" do you believe me? Does my saying I have a genetic test make it any more believable? That DNA (if there actually is any) could be from anyone. If it was obtained surreptitiously it's probably from several anyones.
Same with diseases. Unless you've go
Re: (Score:2)
No, if they can prove that the DNA is from someone who is or isn't closely related to a person -- that would be enough. Once they have the DNA, how easy would it be for a tabloid to go to unhappy or poor relatives of either parent and offer them $100k for their DNA sequence to be obtained? Then they can prove that the DNA they have is related to only one side of a celebrity couple but not the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah right. If Bieber is not related to Uncle Bieber then he's not related to daddy Bieber either.
You could get some DNA from brother Bieber and say look, it's brother Bieber DNA that partially matches my mystery DNA that is definitely Bieber DNA, for sure!
Or you could just pay down on his luck brother Bieber to say Bieber is the mailman's.
Never mind the actual technical problems with sequencing crap samples and trying to match them to something.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only everybody. Everything. And there is no machine that just spits out text files with two billion A, C, T and Gs in them. You get short chunks from every person, dog, bird, bacteria or virus that shed some cells, all mixed together.
Re: (Score:2)
I must admit complete ignorance as to why someone's DNA is so valuable.
You must have seen reports about DNA matching in databases that reveal family relationships.
You must also have heard of genetic diseases.
With just a celebrity's DNA genetic medical information can be obtained - and of course published.
By matching the DNA against registries familial relationships are revealed - parentage, siblings, children. They don't even need to be in the database if other close relatives are (this is how a lot of genetic crime sleuthing works).
Once a celeb-stalker has a celebrity's DNA t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Genetic Theft (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
OK when its sperm though.
You have to sign the release...
Re: (Score:2)
Or just release..
Re: (Score:2)
China is already doing this? (Score:5, Interesting)
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/1... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
In that article the US government seems more concerned about falling behind in bio-tech than about how China might use the data against US citizens.
Perhaps obligatory (Score:2)
Big Bang Theory reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: Perhaps obligatory (Score:2)
No, Black Mirror is the O.R.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
What are they going to do with it? (Score:2)
The list of things that I can think of to do with genetic DNA information is find out what diseases you might have or find out what your ancestry is. I guess tabloids could find the ancestry things sensational if it brought up any new information but other than that who gives a flying fig leaf
Re: (Score:1)
The list of things that I can think of to do with genetic DNA information is find out what diseases you might have or find out what your ancestry is.
When the cancer rate is upwards of 1 in 3, I don't see how a list of "might have" diseases is even remotely valued. Not even by insurance companies.
We are all sick with disease. Just ask the pill pimps who insist you are.
Re: (Score:3)
We are all sick with disease. Just ask the pill pimps who insist you are.
But their commercials are so pleasant and calm!
Re: (Score:3)
Where does the 1 in 3 cancer rate statistic come from? I'm looking at US cases, and I see the latest incidence rate is 442/100,000 per year. Integrating from, say 40 to 80 years old that would accumulate to ~17.6% change or ~1 in 6.
Re:What are they going to do with it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Some people in political situations may be targets of this. Such as Shawn King who has been accused of faking an African American identity for clout and grifting. It'll be interesting to see if racial identity becomes an accepted changeable factor or if like age it's held firmly with whatever the facts are.
Besides that, news that a celebrity, especially a model may actually be a biological male who had androgen insensitivity would not be the career ending news it would've been in the 80's but it's still their private business and potentially harmful to them if suddenly exposed before they were aware of it.
Re: (Score:3)
It's already happened at a lower-tech level. When Khrushchev came to America, they had special toilets installed that allowed them to collect stool samples for analysis.
Basically what I'm saying is, if Russia wants Macron's DNA, they have his DNA. No point in avoiding a test.
Re: (Score:2)
if Russia wants Macron's DNA, they have his DNA. No point in avoiding a test.
That's just an excuse, you say you don't want your DNA sampled when you really just don't want to be poisoned.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if Russia assassinated Macron. I wonder what the rest of the world would do.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes
Patent (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com... [smithsonianmag.com]
Skanky ass (Score:2)
[Madonna} has hired cleaning crews to sterilize her dressing rooms after concerts and requires her own new toilet seats at each stop of her tours.
Good, that will prevent whatever STDs she has from crawling out and infecting others.
Re: (Score:2)
[Madonna} has hired cleaning crews to sterilize her dressing rooms after concerts and requires her own new toilet seats at each stop of her tours.
Good, that will prevent whatever STDs she has from crawling out and infecting others.
Requiring a new toilet seat has been a demand of traveling acts for decades now, nothing to do with DNA collection. Some of the smaller theaters that artists must appear in have less than stringent health and hygiene standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but it's something the big artist can do to make life a bit more pleasant for all the smaller artists, at least for the next couple months.
On a positive note ... (Score:2)
R-E-S-P-E-C-T (Score:2)
I've always known that if Madonna leads, we should follow. Finally, she's proved right.
--
Just like a muse to me, You are a mystery. - Madonna
Re: (Score:2)
If they didn't already have a sample of his DNA all they would need to do is scrape up some shed skin cells. How could any state level diplomat or politician converse adequately without a full dossier analysis of genetic makeup of their adversaries?
Re: (Score:2)
This is completely fake news. The reason why Macron was 10 feet away from Putin is because Putin has cancer and his immune system is very weak. If you watch video of him interacting with his staff you will see his staff is several feet away. He doesnt want to get sick from anything because his body will have trouble fighting the disease. Macron made up the DNA thing in order for Putin to save face. That's what politicans do, they try to smooth things over. Fake news!
I'm not sure it was as much to do with Putin's fear of getting ill as it was Putin's fear that Macron would see how ill Putin really was.
Prince harry as an example (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is a concrete example of how someone from the "paparazzi"/gutter press could be motivated to try and use covert collection of DNA and genetic testing for a scoop,
There has long been speculation and rumors about Prince Harry not being Prince Charles's biological son. James Hewitt is the speculated "real" father, and was known to have had an affair with Diana Princess of Wales starting in 1986 (2 years after Harry was born so obviously doesn't work out unless the affair actually started earlier than either Diana or James have admitted to).
Getting a viable clean DNA sample of Prince Harry, Prince Charle's or James Hewitts DNA and proving that either Charles isn't Harry's biological father, or James was by genetic testing would be quite a big scoop in the tabloid press.
Re: (Score:2)
There has long been speculation and rumors about Prince Harry not being Prince Charles's biological son...proving that either Charles isn't Harry's biological father, or James was by genetic testing would be quite a big scoop in the tabloid press.
The blinding white light of a "scoop" tends to be overshadowed by the darkness of a Royal family not making damn bloody sure upon birth.
Prince Harry, wasn't/isn't exactly sitting in line to be an English commoner, and DNA testing was certainly around when he was born. Even rumors should have been nullified, long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's assume that he wasn't Prince Charles biological son, does it matter? He was raised as a prince so that he would be able to function in the role of King if needed. If a kid from Prince Charles past, who was older than William, suddenly showed up should he be allowed to take the throne instead? He would have no idea what to do in that position and it would bring ruin to the monarchy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't bringing "ruin to the monarchy" be the whole point? And if it matters as little as you say who the king is, might as well do away with the monarchy anyway. If all that matters is how he was raised then they can just run a national lottery among babies and raise the winner to be the next king.
'Whoso pulleth the ball containing their baby's National ID number out of this bingo cage, is rightwise king born of all England."
Make it a big national event every 30 years -- call it Excalibingo!
Re: (Score:2)
Prince Charles will already bring ruin to the monarchy - no-one likes him. Expect Canada and Australia to officially ditch the monarch as head of state after Charles takes the throne. Everyone likes Queen Lizzy, but no-one likes Prince Charlie. If they skip over him to Wills, the monarchy might last another generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse if they use Prince Charles' DNA it to figure out that he's not even English or Scottish, but Prussian.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As you say the timelines don't really line up. With Diana in the ground there is little reason for Hewitt to continue a lie, but equally little advantage to him inserting himself in to a newly rekindled controversy.
On the other hand I think we can be all but certain the Royal family has settled the question privately. After all if William had been killed while he was off soldiering or something it could have very quickly become a BIG problem in terms of their succession plans. At this point though I expect
Re: (Score:2)
Men on Mars? (Score:2, Interesting)
If this technology can be made portable enough, it's hard to imagine why any men would be sent to create a Mars colony - it's too expensive to ship somebody that lacks the ability to create offspring. (Even in the absence of portable IVG, it makes a lot more sense to send sperm than it does to send men.) The best investment is an 18-year-old woman with good reproductive ability and the ability to absorb a technical education once on the planet.
Practically speaking, do we need men any longer?
Re: (Score:2)
First, we have absolutely no idea how much low-G and radiation a pregnant female can sustain and still carry a healthy child to term. For the time being, better to send highly competent, trained volunteers who are ok with a shortened life expectancy, in exchange for fame, fortune, a place in the history books, and helping to move our species to the next level of development.
Second, sperm can't be synthesized in the lab. Yet. So, broadly speaking, the answer to your ques
Re: (Score:2)
There's absolutely no reason to suspect that the ~40% gravity of Mars has any adverse affects on pregnancy, and plenty of reason to think it'd be helpful to weigh less during the 9 months you gain a lot of uncomfortable weight. And any Martian colonist, especially a pregnant one, would be carefully monitored for total radiation exposure and spending almost all of their time in a well-shielded base. They'll probably end up with less radiation than a pregnant woman on Earth.
Sperm can't be synthesized in a lab
Re: (Score:2)
There's absolutely no reason to suspect that the ~40% gravity of Mars has any adverse affects on pregnancy,
Other than the dozens of physiological effects which already affect bodies which evolved for the very specific conditions of Earth.
Effects which are sometimes temporary, but may sometimes be permanent, we don't really know.
Effects which are, so far, only gathered from observations of shorter duration; weeks to months.
Observations which, so far, have only been taken from a sample size of a couple hundred people, which would not even clear the required hurdle of data for FDA approval of an OTC headache pill,
Re: (Score:2)
Practically speaking, do we need men any longer?
Sure, who would open the pickle jars otherwise?
On a more serious note, there's more to men's physiology than just the inability to carry a child to term. If we are truly in a world of custom genetics, the question isn't "do we need men", it's "do we need natural humans".
Ideally we'd create men with wombs to preserve all the positive aspects of male physiology (strength and stamina).
Re: (Score:2)
If this technology can be made portable enough, it's hard to imagine why any men would be sent to create a Mars colony - it's too expensive to ship somebody that lacks the ability to create offspring. (Even in the absence of portable IVG, it makes a lot more sense to send sperm than it does to send men.) The best investment is an 18-year-old woman with good reproductive ability and the ability to absorb a technical education once on the planet.
Practically speaking, do we need men any longer?
All the talk about planetary colonization is sheer fantasy, spurred by a culture so media-drenched it has no reference point for reality anymore, which itself in turn is spurred by the individual human's recognition of their accelerating powerless insignificance.
We are at the very least a century away from humans living on any rockball other than Earth. But I think it's more probable that we never do. By the time we reach a level of technology where colonists can locally generate the energy and nutrients an
Um... (Score:2)
She's concerned that people might get ahold of her DNA...did anyone pay attention to Madonna's behavior for the last 40 years? It would be hard to *avoid* her DNA in certain circles, like cocaine on $100 bills in Miami in the 80s..
Let's just say that I don't think there was any shortage of her DNA anywhere, including banisters, collections of vegetables, whole landfills full of rubber adultwear and BDSM toys, to say nothing of the legions of 20somethings of either gender quite literally covered in her...le
Covfefe (Score:2)
But somehow the idea that a genetically altered coronavirus escaping a lab that specialized in genetically altering coronivrii leading to a global pandemic is so ludicrous and laughable that anyone who even entertains the idea must be a xenophobic conspiracy theorist?!
Genetically specific attack vector (Score:2)
I can see for political reasons avoiding giving up DNA is important. I would bet, based on how we are modifying medical treatments to be more effective based on a patients DNA, attack vectors could be made fairly specific as well.
Gattaca (Score:3)
While the movie wasn't all that, it has some relevance to this story. Specifically, using genetic testing on people. Want to enter the building? Give a drop of blood to prove it's you. Want to learn more about your date? Give a sample from them to be tested. A crime committed? Suck up any shed skin or other items that might fall off (an eyelash for example).
Of course this also leads to compartmentalizing people based on their DNA, but we don't need to go that far. If they don't look right, they won't be hired.
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to say the same thing. Except I really enjoyed the 1997 movie. A sci-fi movie that focused on ideas and characters more then pew-pew laser battles.
With SpaceX starship beginning to rollout, and the pace of automated genetic testing, I would say a Gattaca like future is not very distant at all. Scarily prescient. Even the annoying part with people smoking in the future...e-cigs anyone?
Madonna DNA?! (Score:2)
Oh godz! Be still, my beating heart.
public is public (Score:3)
Is someone stealing your image when they take your picture in public?
You leave DNA everywhere you go, in all kinds of public places. How do you expect privacy when you are littering your DNA around everywhere?
Paranoid or justified? (Score:2)
Sci-Fi assassination targets (Score:1)
If you wanted to wipe out an ethnicity or tribe, you would just need enough tissue samples t
If we had this in the 60s (Score:2)
If we had this in the 60s, we would have been able to prove that Paul is dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Or on the flip side, this could probably be used today to pretty conclusively debunk that idea.
DNA theft, or...? (Score:2)
Do we have any particular reason other than the proposed speculation by click-baiting "journalists" to believe avoiding the tests had anything to do with "protecting" their DNA's secrets?
It seems to me the much greater threat would be the fact that those swabs offer an incredibly effective delivery vector for a huge range of chemical or biological weapons Putin might choose to wield.
I mean, unless they did a pretty thorough decontamination of everything they touched and the area around everywhere they passe