Search

In this essay, I argue that to create a genomics that offers more gifts than weights, central attention must be paid to questions of justice. This will require expanding bioethical imaginations so that they grasp and can respond to questions of structural inequity. It will necessitate building novel coalitions and collaborations that turn the attention of bioethical governance away from narrow individual questions such as, "Do I consent?" and toward the broader collective question, is this just? What kind of lives and collectivities are made possible? What rights and principles should govern them? The essay ends with one example of this novel coalition building arising from the Science and Justice Research Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz. It draws lessons from this effort to build new alliances that bridge the social sciences and natural sciences, arts and engineering, to create new kinds of training and thinking that create a genomics that more adequately responds to fundamental questions of justice.

At stake in the debate about personal genomics is what kind of person can be trusted to interpret genomes. Deciding this hinges not just on determining if consumers can interpret genomic information, but on deciding which biological and medical experts (if any) can perform these interpretive acts. Understanding why personal genomics has generated such tension and attention requires bringing these struggles, over who can interpret ‘the code of life’, into focus. While debates about personal genomics focus largely on relatively narrow issues of fraud and deception, this emerging new scientific and political terrain poses more fundamental questions about how the study of biological life, as well as the organization of democratic life, should proceed in genomic times.

Since opening their doors in late 2006, personal genomics (PG) companies have faced skepticism and criticism from influential academic and government circles. While this has posed a clear problem of communication for these companies — one of effective promotion — I argue that the communication problem these companies face runs much deeper. It is a problem that lies at the heart of any genomics: the very understanding of communication and information around which genomics is built. While the value of genomic information for persons has been widely questioned, questions about the very notion of information that undergirds the production of genomic information rarely, if ever, has been broached. I suggest that making significant inroads into the vexing debates about PG would be greatly aided by addressing these more fundamental questions about the nature of information, and its genomic qualities.