D N A and insurance companies.

[ippy]

I would like to hear whatever anyone has to say about whether the insurance companies would be interested in D N A research as another source of risk assessment in any area such as things like life expectancy, or anything else that could be read about in a D N A profile.

As research goes on into this subject I can imagine it becoming considerably more reliable at foretelling about the future health prospects of any of us than teacup readings do and as such, maybe I'm wrong, but I would have thought the ins co's have already got their noses well and truly stuck into this subject.

I was at a family meet up there near Birmingham and was able to mention this to a distant relative, yes he's even more distant now, couldn't go into a deep debate about it at that time but he is an actuary and would have a little more knowledge about this than I have, surprisingly, he seems to think it would be unlawful for them to take this up, I thought yes from the freedom of information pov, but I also would think why wouldn't ins co's be interested in any reliable source of information, or at least asses its potential.

I don't mind if I'm shot down in flames over this but obviously I would prefer to see some backing up my thoughts on this. 

ippy

[Shaker]

There are plenty of things in life I utterly loathe, abhor, despise and detest; one of them is insurance companies and another is the creeping encroachment on individual liberty even down to the genetic level (such as mandatory DNA sample taken upon arrest, kept for ever unless heroic efforts are made to have the sample destroyed [which I don't even believe occurs anyway]) so it's a no from me.

[Udayana]

hmm... insurance is a vital part of our economic and banking systems.

Of-course there are many kinds of insurance that could be managed much more effectively given better understanding of risks associated with particular genetics. Why should insurance not take DNA research and profiling into account? Indeed, how could it not?

The benefits of everyone having their DNA details to hand will be enormous and surely the possible threats to civil liberties can be managed with appropriate legislation and systems design?

[Shaker]

Why should insurance not take DNA research and profiling into account?

Because insurance companies are companies alias businesses, who by definition care exclusively, only and solely about profit, the whole profit and nothing but the profit, so help them Mammon. Nothing else need apply, least of all personal privacy; only £$€¥ et. al.

The benefits of everyone having their DNA details to hand will be enormous and surely the possible threats to civil liberties can be managed with appropriate legislation and systems design?

I don't know of these "benefits" of which you speak. How charmingly naive. Enjoy your cocoa with teddy.

[Rhiannon]

There was a case in the US where a banker joined a cancer charity and used his position to access records and decline loans and mortgages to anyone who had used the charity's services.

I think that if you are in possession of information that means you have an increased risk of certain conditions then you have to declare it or face losing any claims that you make. So although data protection should stop companies accessing records you are taking a risk if you don't disclose all information and could find you don't get a payout with regards to health or life assurance for example.

[ippy]

The chap I spoke to, he was an actuary, about D N A was quite adamant about  how illegal it would be for them, ins co's, to go into any kind of study of the general public's D N A, unfortunately and not at the same time, it was a family gathering where it would have been impolite of me to press how much I mistrust these companies etc.

Whatever he said about these Ins' companies not trying to gain every shred of info they could, I just don't believe or trust them to stand back, give in and ignore this rich source of info that would potentially give their profits a considerable boost at some stage.

It wouldn't surprise me if they contributed some considerable funding to that original genome project, no doubt in a way that it couldn't be traced back to them.

ippy

   

[Rhiannon]

In terms of research I should think they have much more profitable areas to focus on. For example, probing links beaten certain lifestyle choices and illness and using them to settle insurance claims might be one.

[ippy]

There was a case in the US where a banker joined a cancer charity and used his position to access records and decline loans and mortgages to anyone who had used the charity's services.

I think that if you are in possession of information that means you have an increased risk of certain conditions then you have to declare it or face losing any claims that you make. So although data protection should stop companies accessing records you are taking a risk if you don't disclose all information and could find you don't get a payout with regards to health or life assurance for example.

Yes I mistakenly wrote freedom of information, in my OP, where I meant data protection.

Insurance is a business of course but I don't think they are completely staffed by a bunch of halo wearers either.

ippy

[ippy]

In terms of research I should think they have much more profitable areas to focus on. For example, probing links beaten certain lifestyle choices and illness and using them to settle insurance claims might be one.

They wouldn't be interested in D N A then?

ippy

[Udayana]

Because insurance companies are companies alias businesses, who by definition care exclusively, only and solely about profit, the whole profit and nothing but the profit, so help them Mammon. Nothing else need apply, least of all personal privacy; only £$€¥ et. al.

Yes. Exactly. That is how they were created and why they work, in an economy based in capitalism at least. Personal privacy depends on legislation and codes of ethics that need to be enforced and policed - but that already applies to most information, so why should DNA data need special consideration? 

I don't know of these "benefits" of which you speak. How charmingly naive. Enjoy your cocoa with teddy.

For example, doctors will soon be able to prescribe medication that is tailored for specific genetic makeups, so we will be able to get personalized medicines that are more effective and have fewer unwanted side effects.

Not really sure about which bits of genetic information you are worried about: As we are basically walking bags of DNA, leaking all over the shop, anyone that needs your profile for whatever, good or bad, reason can get it anyway.
 

[Rhiannon]

They wouldn't be interested in D N A then?

ippy

I am not especially science brained but I'm thinking it's an understanding of genetic disease that might be useful. But the research is expensive and I think there's more profit in research elsewhere.

[Udayana]

The chap I spoke to, he was an actuary, about D N A was quite adamant about  how illegal it would be for them, ins co's, to go into any kind of study of the general public's D N A, unfortunately and not at the same time, it was a family gathering where it would have been impolite of me to press how much I mistrust these companies etc.

Whatever he said about these Ins' companies not trying to gain every shred of info they could, I just don't believe or trust them to stand back, give in and ignore this rich source of info that would potentially give their profits a considerable boost at some stage.

It wouldn't surprise me if they contributed some considerable funding to that original genome project, no doubt in a way that it couldn't be traced back to them.

ippy

This page basically gives what the current state of play is as regards what information insurance companies can and cannot ask for wrt. genetics;
http://www.geneticalliance.org.uk/information/living-with-a-genetic-condition/insurance-family-history-and-genetic-testing/

The underlying question is: What information should they have about you before they place a bet with you on the length of your life?
 

[Shaker]

Yes. Exactly. That is how they were created and why they work, in an economy based in capitalism at least.

That's a major part of my problem with it.

Personal privacy depends on legislation and codes of ethics that need to be enforced and policed - but that already applies to most information, so why should DNA data need special consideration?

Because capitalism and moral responsibility don't mix. 

Enforcement and policing ... well, look at enforcing and policing for a glimpse of how well that works in practice. Why would your Utopia of rectitude and impeccable moral probity be otherwise? Upon which planet will this ideal scenario take place?

For example, doctors will soon be able to prescribe medication that is tailored for specific genetic makeups, so we will be able to get personalized medicines that are more effective and have fewer unwanted side effects.

Which like every other medical area is expected to be a confidential matter between physician and patient with no consideration of money in the equation, not stacked up on a leaky database highly likely on past showing to be left on a laptop on a train by some clueless clown.

Not really sure about which bits of genetic information you are worried about: As we are basically walking bags of DNA, leaking all over the shop

If it's mine I own it. If anybody else wants access to it they have to ask first. (N. B. Chances are I'm going to say no).

anyone that needs your profile for whatever, good or bad, reason can get it anyway.

But should not. It's not theirs. It's mine. Who gives whoever the right to this "anyway"? I didn't sign up to that. I didn't agree to it. I don't agree to it. Who claims this right over what is mine and on what or whose authority?

[Robbie]

I'm with Shaker on this subject, think it's an outrage that so little is private. I shudder when i see adverts for that family tree organisation who offer to match DNA to relatives you've never heard of. No thanks.

[Shaker]

I'm with Shaker on this subject, think it's an outrage that so little is private. I shudder when i see adverts for that family tree organisation who offer to match DNA to relatives you've never heard of. No thanks.

My one proviso: I see those adverts too - you can freely and willingly choose to go in for those or not as the fancy takes you (or doesn't).

Find yourself arrested at a demonstration that the government doesn't like (for example) and you are compelled by physical force if need be to give a sample of your genetic material.

[Udayana]

Ownership of DNA is not clearly defined:

Who owns your DNA? It’s not who you think

Even then the article is mostly concerned by actual body parts or samples, rather than the pure information (0s and 1s). Doubt that it could be copyrighted, and most of it is shared with the rest of the living world, let alone your relatives. 

Dogs, bears ... gnats can sample it at will. Humans you meet are probably using and reacting to it unconsciously when in your presence.

If you're worried by databases being misused, then the only recourse is to think the issues through and put appropriate rules and policing in place. - as with any other data and with similar risks.   

You can't just vote yes or no and get a meaningful outcome!

[Rhiannon]

If o go to the hairdressers I'm assuming that they own my hair clippings - they aren't obliged to give them back to me. If they decide to then extract my DNA I'm not sure there's much I can do to stop them.

[Shaker]

Ownership of DNA is not clearly defined:

Who owns your DNA? It’s not who you think

Even then the article is mostly concerned by actual body parts or samples, rather than the pure information (0s and 1s). Doubt that it could be copyrighted, and most of it is shared with the rest of the living world, let alone your relatives.

No, my DNA isn't shared with anyone. It is, as far as science can tell, a once-in-a-universe one-off arrangement of atoms.

Dogs, bears ... gnats can sample it at will.

They have no conception of sampling DNA, and it's not at my will, which is the only thing that matters.

Humans you meet are probably using and reacting to it unconsciously when in your presence.

How?

If you're worried by databases being misused, then the only recourse is to think the issues through and put appropriate rules and policing in place. - as with any other data and with similar risks.

No it isn't. The surest recourse is not to create them at all in the first place. No database, no risk.

You can't just vote yes or no and get a meaningful outcome!

Why not?

[floo]

I would like to hear whatever anyone has to say about whether the insurance companies would be interested in D N A research as another source of risk assessment in any area such as things like life expectancy, or anything else that could be read about in a D N A profile.

As research goes on into this subject I can imagine it becoming considerably more reliable at foretelling about the future health prospects of any of us than teacup readings do and as such, maybe I'm wrong, but I would have thought the ins co's have already got their noses well and truly stuck into this subject.

I was at a family meet up there near Birmingham and was able to mention this to a distant relative, yes he's even more distant now, couldn't go into a deep debate about it at that time but he is an actuary and would have a little more knowledge about this than I have, surprisingly, he seems to think it would be unlawful for them to take this up, I thought yes from the freedom of information pov, but I also would think why wouldn't ins co's be interested in any reliable source of information, or at least asses its potential.

I don't mind if I'm shot down in flames over this but obviously I would prefer to see some backing up my thoughts on this. 

ippy

It seems crazy to me!

[Udayana]

If o go to the hairdressers I'm assuming that they own my hair clippings - they aren't obliged to give them back to me. If they decide to then extract my DNA I'm not sure there's much I can do to stop them.

There is no market currently for such information (except for the secret clone army being built by Toni under the town centre) but if there were, rules and a code of conduct would be defined so that everyone could be confident no harm would arise from getting their hair cut. If there are opportunities to make money, some will exploit them, so it has to be policed too.

[Udayana]

No, my DNA isn't shared with anyone. It is, as far as science can tell, a once-in-a-universe one-off arrangement of atoms.

They have no conception of sampling DNA, and it's not at my will, which is the only thing that matters.
How?
No it isn't. The surest recourse is not to create them at all in the first place. No database, no risk.
Why not?

Sorry, will have to get back to you later ... just off for a couple of days with no connection

[Shaker]

Enjoy.

[jeremyp]

hmm... insurance is a vital part of our economic and banking systems.

Of-course there are many kinds of insurance that could be managed much more effectively given better understanding of risks associated with particular genetics. Why should insurance not take DNA research and profiling into account? Indeed, how could it not?

Here's the problem.

The whole point of insurance is to spread the risk. Everybody pays in a small amount in the knowledge that they are probably going to lose money on the deal but there is a chance they will have to make a claim and without the insurance, it would bankrupt them.

However, if you know you won't need to make a claim, you won't buy insurance which means the subsidy the insurance company gets to cover the people who will be making claims goes away and the premiums of high risk people go up. This is one reason why Obamacare made it mandatory to get health insurance.

Conversely, if the insurance company knows you will be making a claim, they are not going to enter into the deal unless your premiums will cover the claim.

At some level of knowledge, insurance stops being insurance and starts being a savings plan. Unfortunately, because of the high costs it would be expected to cover, the payments would be too much for most people.

The benefits of everyone having their DNA details to hand will be enormous and surely the possible threats to civil liberties can be managed with appropriate legislation and systems design?

We live in a country where the HMRC lost a CD-ROM with everybody's child benefit details on it and a country in which the Home Secretary is telling us we don't really want end to end encryption. I wouldn't trust the government with my DNA. The only people I would trust less than the government with my DNA is for profit corporations, like insurance companies.

[ippy]

Here's the problem.

The whole point of insurance is to spread the risk. Everybody pays in a small amount in the knowledge that they are probably going to lose money on the deal but there is a chance they will have to make a claim and without the insurance, it would bankrupt them.

However, if you know you won't need to make a claim, you won't buy insurance which means the subsidy the insurance company gets to cover the people who will be making claims goes away and the premiums of high risk people go up. This is one reason why Obamacare made it mandatory to get health insurance.

Conversely, if the insurance company knows you will be making a claim, they are not going to enter into the deal unless your premiums will cover the claim.

At some level of knowledge, insurance stops being insurance and starts being a savings plan. Unfortunately, because of the high costs it would be expected to cover, the payments would be too much for most people.
We live in a country where the HMRC lost a CD-ROM with everybody's child benefit details on it and a country in which the Home Secretary is telling us we don't really want end to end encryption. I wouldn't trust the government with my DNA. The only people I would trust less than the government with my DNA is for profit corporations, like insurance companies.

The only people I would trust less than the government with my DNA is for profit corporations, like insurance companies.

My sentiments entirely, unfortunately the situation I was in, it was a family gathering where this distant relative was an actuary, the very person I would have liked to discussed this with at length was there but I would have been out of order to do so at that time.

ippy 

[Udayana]

Back now ..

No, my DNA isn't shared with anyone. It is, as far as science can tell, a once-in-a-universe one-off arrangement of atoms.

The whole chain is likely unique, and can be treated as a single id number if you like, however the genes and combinations of them are shared are with many other humans and other species - if it wasn't there wouldn't be any point in studying it.

They have no conception of sampling DNA, and it's not at my will, which is the only thing that matters.

They know what you are, how to find you and whether you're tasty or not .. which is all they are interested in or need.

How?

Indirectly, as how we look, sound and smell is mostly down to our DNA. The human brain is excellent at building associations and generalising with that data in order to understand and predict others behaviour. Of-course in the longer term many associations are quite wrong (becoming instinctual prejudice), but in the moment they do allow us to communicate and interact with others quite well.   

No it isn't. The surest recourse is not to create them at all in the first place. No database, no risk.

As far as insurance goes no database need be involved. For any insurance deal all that is really required is that the relevant information is known by both sides to the deal. 

Why not?

Because people will always need life and health insurance in some form or other and we will certainly use genetics to help us mange our health and longevity.