(AEEC) Connor Burri, Patrick O’Mullan, Matthew Spofford, Alex Young
Categorization of people has been a challenging topic for centuries. With developing technologies in the realms of genetics and biometrics, we are for the first time able to accurately categorize people based not just by appearance, but by the molecules that encode their being. However, these developments pose several challenges in terms of ethics and society. As this technology develops, we will be faced with privacy concerns due to biometrics and DNA tests, and the implications of genetic testing among different populations.
With the rise of the internet over the past few decades, the general population is continuing to willingly store private data with companies worldwide. This data is then being used to categorize people, whether that is to find out about their ancestry, display relevant advertisements, or to better the individual’s public image. While this may seem beneficial to most, having your personal data easily accessible leads to major privacy concerns. This is extremely prevalent with the developing genetic testing technologies. Companies such as 23andMe and Ancestry.com are accepting an individual’s genetic information to identify their ethnic background, discover their history, and even spot genetic diseases. However, by giving these companies your own genetic data “the potential for abuse is vast and frightening” (The Privacy Delusions of Genetic Testing). While allowing companies to store your genetic data may seem safe, data breaches are inevitable, so your genetic information will quickly reach the wrong hands. On top of that, companies could sell your private information to third-party organizations. Future employers could also access this information to see if you may be a potential health risk and prevent you from being hired. This is a violation of an individual’s privacy and raises serious ethical concerns about whether gene testing companies should store your information.
A computer’s ability to take biometric data and use that information is a major technological advancement, but it brings rise to ethical issues. In José Ragas’ article “What’s in a Face ID”, Ragas alludes to the idea of how your biometric information is managed once you give it away. He states in his blog “these systems that attempt to capture and authenticate a version of our bodies may belie our belief that we own them” (Ragas). If this technology falls into the wrong hands then all our personal data can be compromised. In order to advance in biometrics, it is essential that we tackle the issue of data ownership with respect to biometric technology.
Another challenge of the rapid growth in genetic technology is related to the misinterpretation of this information. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, scholars focused mainly on physical characteristics in order to classify individuals. However, with the development in genetic technologies, researchers have begun to use the human genome to search for differences between populations, in order to “trace the human evolution and migration patterns, predict genetic disorders, and offer insights into an individual’s genealogy.” (Jackson 2) Race in the United States has been a historically complicated topic, during the rise of genetics in the 20th-century racial tension was at its height. This caused genetics to be heavily racialized, leading to samples being commonly arranged by race. For tracing human populations this can be useful, but when strictly sampling by race, ethical concerns may become common. There is a history of scientists attempting to categorize humans by features for the purposes of the study; while the methods have changed the purpose is the same. However, some of the implications can be interpreted by members of society in incorrect ways. In the 20th-century, scientists had determined that “pure races” aren’t real, and that “all humans are descended from a common evolutionary stock; that races are dynamic and not static entities.” (Gil. 286) We still view race from this standpoint, at least scientifically. This is supported by many expert opinions, such as Ann Morning, a sociologist of medicine. She found that there was a misconception in scientific literature relating to the illegitimacy of race, stating “no such consensus has been reached in the biomedical sciences.” (Jackson 9) However, it is possible that an individual may hear the results of certain studies related to different groups and use that information to fuel their biases. Studies related to disease development showed results that indicated “progression in European Americans but accelerated disease in African-Americans” (Jackson 21). However, confounding variables may be at play. Many scholars have also stated that “genetic differences among humans pale in comparison to the differences between the social classes.” (Jackson 7). Too much reliance on purely genetic information without context could prove to be challenging. Studies that continue to focus solely on race could create implications for certain groups of people, resulting in previous ethical dilemmas.
Work Cited:
Gil-Riaño, Sebastián. “Relocating Anti-Racist Science: the 1950 UNESCO Statement on Race and Economic Development in the Global South.” The British Journal for the History of Science, vol. 51, no. 02, 2018, pp. 281–303., doi:10.1017/s0007087418000286.
Jackson, Myles W. “Race, Difference, and Genes.” The Genealogy of a Gene, 2015, pp. 142–174., doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262028660.003.0008.
Pitts, Peter. “The Privacy Delusions Of Genetic Testing.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 15 Feb. 2017,www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/02/15/the-privacy-delusions-of-genetic-testing/#522ed281bba.
Ragas, José. “What’s in a Face ID?” Slate, 5 Mar. 2018, slate.com/technology/2018/03/with-apples-face-id-its-time-to-look-at-facial-recognition-echs-problematic-past.html.