[adriancr]

That unfriendly state would have no issue forcing everyone to give up a dna sample.

So it's not exacly a slippery slope.

On the other hand there's clear benefits of DNA database now in catching murderers and the like. So a clear win.

[aliqot]

What I'm more worried about is insurance companies using this info to say you are part of a cohort expressing allele group X% and is thus more likely to Y, and then acting accordingly based on that info. What if in the future your grandchild gets told they express an allele that gives them a propensity to alcoholism, and on those grounds is barred from entering certain establishments without losing coverage, or without permission? It sounds outlandish, but it's not when you consider in some of our lives, we were born able to buy alcohol at any age, then 16, then 18, then 21. Recently in the past 5 years I've heard more than one conversation about possibly revisiting this to include smoking at age 21, and limiting the size of sugar drinks in a single purchase.

I don't consume sugar or alcohol, but it's also not my choice to say what you should do, especially not because of your genetics, yet if I were an insurance company we sign a contract that gives me that right, so why enable it?

[adriancr]

Vote for universal healthcare then?, or vote to force coverage on all.

This seems unavoidable otherwise.

[aliqot]

I'm more on the side of abolish all insurance and gambling-industry, but I think I'm alone on that sentiment. *

* (and that is completely okay, different strokes and all that)