Genetic Testing: Promise and Peril
Ottawa, Ontario, May 5, 2003

Does genetic testing matter if you're starving to death?

For most people, what's in your bank account is a better predictor of your long-term health than what's in your gene bank. It's a stark fact that raises questions about the absolute value of investing in genomics research in societies, and in a world, divided by enormous social inequities.

"We inherit much more than genes within families," says Abby Lippman. "We inherit wealth. And most of the inequities within Canada, as well as between Canada and other countries, are really more determined by such things as poverty or wealth, than by the society's gene structure."

Timothy Caulfield says that publicly funded access to genetic tests is a critical issue in the ethical adoption of the technology.

"One of the most complex decisions is how we decide what is going to be covered by the public health care system," says Caulfield. "And then, what do you do with all the genetic tests that fall outside of that? Do we create laws that ban private genetic testing? We don't do that MRIs or CT-scans. Is this different?"

The same concerns about public funding for what many view as an elitist technology are often raised in relation to the human space program, says Bob McDonald. He believes that the space program has shown that it's not a question of "either-or" commitments, and that there are numerous broader positive technological spin-offs from supporting cutting-edge research.

In fact, says Dr. Alex MacKenzie, the benefits of genomics are starting to trickle down to the world's poorest peoples. In recent years, the genomes of the malarial parasite and the tuberculosis bacterium have been mapped.

"Maybe it's guilt driven," says Dr. MacKenzie. "But, happily, in the last five years, it has become in vogue to focus one's mind on Third World problems from a genomics perspective."