Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Reflection on first part of Cracking the code of life.

1. Would you want to be tested to learn whether they  had a genetic disease or predisposition if no cure available? Why or why not?

I would still want to be tested for this genetic disease or predispositiosn because maybe starting with finding out whether this disease is in my body, so that if in the future there was a cure created that I would be aware that this would be helpful to me. Also, I believe that being informed is much better than not being, because this would allow you to be aware of the dangers your predisposition could carry.



2.  Would you want to have your DNA be part of a study? Why or why not? Would you want royalties for your part in finding the gene? What if during the testing, the company discovered you had a gene that might result in health problems later in life? Would you want to be informed ? Why or why not?
I would not be opposed to having my DNA be part of a study that could prevent people from falling ill and losing their life. Yet if I did I would not ask for anything, because it was just the matter I would have contributed and none of the true time and effort put in by the scientists that actually created the cure. Though if the company did find out that I might have health problems later on in life, I would definitely want to know about it. For the same reasons answered for the question above.

3. I think that keeping the public's genetic makeup private rather than public would help against any developing of genetic discrimination. Yet I don't honestly believe that genetic discrimination will become a very big problem, because there are bigger social issues plaguing society currently.

No comments:

Post a Comment