DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored
bruen at coldrain.net
Mon Jul 7 05:25:58 PDT 2003
The issue of knowing about other people based on one subject's DNA
has been known for for several years. For example, if a a woman
has the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene (breast cancer), then so does her mother,
sister(s) and daughter(s) because the gene is hereditary. Insurance
companies can/have refused insurance coverage to the subject's relatives
and the relatives have no idea why.
Ethical issues have surfaced around the desire of the subject's
relatives not wanting to know if they have a harmful, shared gene. If
the subject tells her relatives abour her gene, then her relatives know
that they have the gene. It's not like I told some them I broke my arm
which only tells them a fact about me.
The extension into law enforcement is an expected outcome. And there
will be more.
In my opinion, very few people understand the impact of human
understanding of how life is constructed. The science is well understood,
the engineering has just begun. We are taking conscious control of
evolution, far past selective breeding and way past clones.
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
> The point is that there are undiscussed evidentiary problems using
> relatives' DNA, hinging on the assumption that "blood relatives
> actually share blood", in layspeak.
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy