In 2008, Congress passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act to prevent employers and insurance companies from discriminating against Americans based on their medical records.

Now a House committee is taking steps to remove GINAs protections.

On March 8, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce narrowly approved HR 1313, which could allow employers to require genetic testing as part of a workplace wellness program. Employees could face financial penalties if they refused.

The idea behind this is to make employees healthier and reduce health care costs for companies. But medical ethicists argue that this is not only unethical, its scientifically incoherent. Simply put, an employer wouldnt be able to glean anything particularly useful from commercially available genetic testing.

Theres this notion that somehow we could give you a genetic test and find out your risk factors and control them or monitor them,Arthur Caplan, the founding director of New York Universitys Division of Medical Ethics told The Huffington Post.Thats science that isnt here yet.

Dr. Lainie Ross, professor of clinical medical ethics at the University of Chicago Medicine, said,Were advancing in our understanding of genetics, but were nowhere near being able to say, Because you have this gene, you definitely should take this medicine or not.

Even Dr. Tom Price, the former orthopedic surgeon and Affordable Care Act opponent who now heads the Department of Health and Human Services, expressed reservations about HR 1313.

Im not familiar with the bill, but it sounds like there would be some significant concerns about it, Price said Sunday on Meet the Press. If the departments asked to evaluate it, or if its coming through the department, well be glad to take a look at it.

In 2015, the Food and Drug Administration cautioned that some laboratory tests could harm patients because they led to false diagnoses and unnecessary treatments (the agency later withdrew its regulatory proposalsand left lab test regulation up to President Donald Trumps FDA commissioner and Congress).

In fact, in a study in which researchers gave nine labs a genetic variant and asked them to analyze it, the labs gave different answers 22 percent of the time.

Even if everyone agrees that a genetic variant can cause disease, the actual risk to an individual of developing that disease is not that clear, Heidi Rehm of Brigham and Womens Hospital told the STAT health news site. That risk depends on environmental factors as well as other genetic ones, but truthfully we dont know what those factors are.

Forced genetic testing could push highly personal, sensitive and potentially inaccurate informationon individuals who may not want to know if they have specific health risks, particularly if they carry genetic mutations for serious or incurable conditions.

Genetics is based on probabilities, not certainties. So, although a test may find that you have an increased risk of breast cancer, to use one example, that does not mean you are certain to get the disease.

It maypush people into seeking out untested treatments or treatments that they really dont need because they come from a low-risk family, Ross said. Its not good medical practice.

Then theres the possibility that employers and insurance companies could use genetic information (which might not even accurately represent disease risk) to discriminate against employees and customers. Insurance companies could potentially charge people who show a risk for certain genetic conditions higher premiums, and unscrupulous employers would have the ability to make hiring and firing decisions based on employee health.

Theres also the dicey question of which genes employers and insurance companies might choose to look at.

Cherry-picking who gets insurance could potentially stigmatize one group of people.

We all have health risks. Were all going to die, Ross said. This is all about risk, and we want to share the risk.

Workplace wellness programs are popular (about half of U.S. companies with 50 or more employees had workplace wellness programs in place, according to a 2013 report from the nonpartisan Rand Corp. think tank), but theres not much evidence that such programs improve employee health.

Most of the studies that do exist fail to prove causation, show only short-term effects or are written by the wellness industry,according to The New York Times. The more rigorous studies are more likely to show that wellness programs neither save money nor improve employee health.

Thats not to say health and wellness shouldnt be employer priorities. But workplace wellness programs that incentivize and penalize employees based on their health are fundamentally unethical, according to Caplan.

The notion that your boss is in the best position to monitor your health is morally tenuous, he said. For example, your boss doesnt care if your job is stressing you out. Theyre not going to fix that. Theyre just going to tell you to lose weight.

If your boss really cares about your health, then they can build a gym and incentivize you to go down there when they give you that extra 30-minute break.

See the article here:
Workplace Genetic Testing Isn't Just Unethical, It's Scientifically Unsound - Huffington Post

Asking whether or not we really have free choice is a metaphysical question, perhaps left to those in the movie The Matrix. But throughout our lives,the decisions we make areinfluencedas much bypersonal choices as they are by genetic wiringcreated by millennia ofadaptations.

Consider the simple act of eating. We may think our food consumption isdriven byspur-of-the-moment choices. But the reality is that our individual genetics play a major role in thepleasure we derive from eating. Our physiological response to food (anticipation, selection, consumption, satisfaction) is based in a complicated reward system in the brain involving the mesolimbic network, as well as neurotransmitters such as dopamine. There is a question that stems back to at least the ancient Greeks: Inone version, Hera asked Tiresias, who derived more pleasure from sex, men or women? (Spoiler: Apparently women do 9x more!) Of course its rhetoric, but similarly, we cant assume and shouldnt presume that one persons experience with eating behaviors is the sameas anothers. This could be at the root of why some people find dieting so miserable and difficult, while others find iteffortless.

Do you really consciously choose what you will do?

Why do we think its genes?

Its been established that a series of gene variants is associated with addiction, which is an aberration of the brains reward system, and that these gene variants are heritable (having an alcoholic or other drug addict in the family increases the likelihood that others would be found to have addictive behaviors). More research must be done, butits a good bet that the two (drug cravings and food cravings) are closely linked in the brain.

An interesting look at this issue from a different direction can be found in the workings of the drug Contrave (a combination of bupropion and naltrexone) approved in 2014 for treatment of obesity. Bupropion has shown effectiveness as an appetite suppressant, while naltrexone blocks the effects of opioid drugs removing the reward offered to addicts.

One of the things we learn is thatthere are similarities between drugs and eating at least in terms of the pleasurederived by users. Naltrexone(and the similar naloxone) work through a direct and interesting mechanism: They prevent or reversethe effects of opioids by blocking opioid receptors, thereby preventingthe drugs from having an active site to dock and cause physiological activation.

Many drug overdoses lead to death because of respiratory depression, sedation, and hypotension (low blood pressure). By halting these drug effects, doctors have successfully revivedopioid usersfrom unresponsive states. Naloxonealso can reverse the negative mental and mood effects ofcertain drugs.

In those people using it for weight loss (as a component of Contrave), the drug modifies the response to the pleasure and craving of food in much the same way that it stops drug cravings.The person never feels the high he or she would typically experience fromeating.

Establishing further connection between genetics, brain architecture and food cravings, Contrave has been suggested to work bystimulatingneurons in the hypothalamus to generate theappetite-suppressant effect, whileblocking feedback mechanisms in the brain.

Researchersof Contraves dual mechanism of actionalso suggest that itmight have effects on themesolimbic reward system, adding, that this may lead to further weight reduction by modulating reward values and goal-oriented behaviors.

So certainly which foods we find desirable is in part influenced by our genetics, as well as our life experiences. But how effortful we need to be in our vigilance to avoid or reduce certain trigger foods may have more to do with the neurobiological effects of addiction than we may like to think.

Ben Locwin, PhD, MBA, MS, is a contributor to the Genetic Literacy Project and is an author of a wide variety of scientific articles in books and magazines. He is an expert contact for the American Associationof Pharmaceutical Scientists(AAPS), a committee member of the American Statistical Association (ASA), and has been featured by the CDC, the Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and other media outlets. Follow him at@BenLocwin

Continue reading here:
Overeating? As with drug use, genetics may drive our choices - Genetic Literacy Project

A vitriolic proxy battle for control of a New Jersey company that Seattle Genetics made a big deal with in February has now put their transaction on ice for at least a month.

Seattle Times business editor

A vitriolic proxy battle for control of a New Jersey company that Seattle Genetics made a big deal with in February has now put their transaction on ice for at least a month.

Seattle Genetics agreed last month to pay $250 million upfront to license a potential solid-tumor drug developed by Immunomedics, a small biotech company in Morris Plains, New Jersey. Future milestone and royalty payments could push the total to $2 billion, the companies said.

But a proxy challenge to the board members running Immunomedics has thrown a wrench into that plan: A Delaware judge Thursday issued a temporary restraining order preventing Seattle Genetics from closing the deal.

We can confirm that the Delaware Chancery court issued a temporary restraining order delaying the closing of the IMMU-132 licensing deal between Seattle Genetics and Immunomedics for 30 days, a spokeswoman for Seattle Genetics said in an email.

The judges ruling is not yet available, but a court document filed Thursday said the temporary restraining order was granted in part.

VenBio, the largest Immunomedics shareholder with 9.9 percent of the stock, seeks to oust four controlling board members amid claims the 35-year-old company is mismanaged by the founder, who is its chief scientific officer, and his wife, who is president and CEO.

The activist investor fund portrays Immunomedics Seattle Genetics deal as a Hail Mary attempt to maintain control and short-circuit an orderly bidding process that could have yielded a better deal.

VenBio says its slate of candidates for the board was endorsed by the three leading proxy advisory firms ISS, Glass Lewis and Egan Jones and asserts that before the March 3 shareholder meeting it was receiving a majority of stockholder votes.

Nearly a week after that meeting, Immunomedics has not announced the results.

A day before the shareholder meeting, in a separate federal court suit filed by Immunomedics seeking to invalidate VenBios proxy votes, a judge declined to grant the company a temporary restraining order. That suit claimed VenBio has engaged in baseless character assassinations and violated laws governing proxy contests.

Until the litigation in both courts is resolved, its unlikely Seattle Genetics can complete its deal and move forward with the planned Phase 3 clinical trials for the drug in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

Read this article:
Seattle Genetics' big deal held up as partner's shareholders do ... - The Seattle Times

Employers could impose hefty penalties on employees who decline to participate in genetic testing as part of workplace wellness programs if a bill approved by a U.S. House committee this week becomes law.

In general, employersdon't have that power under existing federal laws, which protect genetic privacy and nondiscrimination. But a bill passed Wednesday by theHouse Committee on Education and the Workforce would allow employers to get around thoseobstacles if the information is collected as part of a workplace wellness program.

Suchprograms which offer workers a variety ofcarrots and sticksto monitor and improve their health, such as lowering cholesterol have become increasingly popularwith companies.Some offer discounts on health insurance to employees who complete health-risk assessments. Others might charge people more for smoking.Under the Affordable Care Act, employers are allowed to discount health insurance premiums by up to 30 percent and in some cases 50 percent for employees who voluntarily participate in a wellness program.

[Obamacare revision clears two House committees as Trump, others tried to tamp down backlash]

The bill is under review by other House committees and still must be considered by the Senate. But it has already faced strong criticism from a broad array of groups, as well as House Democrats. In a letter sent to the committee earlier this week, nearly 70 organizations representing consumer, health and medical advocacy groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, AARP, March of Dimes and the National Women's Law Center said the legislation, if enacted, would undermine basic privacy provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act and the 2008 Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act(GINA).

Congress passed GINA to prohibit discrimination by health insurers and employers based on the information that people carry in their genes. There is an exception that allows for employees to provide that information as part of voluntary wellness programs. But the law states that employee participation must be entirely voluntary, with no incentives for providing the dataor penalties for not providing it.

But theHouse legislation would allow employers to impose penalties of up to 30 percent of the total cost of the employee's health insurance on those who choose to keep such information private.

[Rich Americans seem to have found a way to avoid paying a key Obamacare tax]

It's a terrible Hobson's choice between affordable health insurance and protecting one's genetic privacy, said Derek Scholes, director of science policy at the American Society of Human Genetics, which represents human genetics specialists. The organization sent aletter to the committee opposing the bill.

The average annual premium for employer-sponsored family health coverage in 2016 was $18,142, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Under the plan proposed in the bill, a wellness program could charge employees an extra $5,443 in annual premiums if they choose not to share their genetic and health information.

The bill, Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act, HR 1313, was introduced by Rep. Virginia Foxx, (R-N.C.), who chairs the Committee on Education and the Workforce. A committee statement said the bill provides employers the legal certainty they need to offer employee wellness plans, helping to promote a healthy workforce and lower health care costs.

The bills supporters in the business community have argued that competing regulations in federal laws make it too difficult for companies to offer these wellness programs. In congressional testimony this month, the American Benefits Council, which represents major employers, said the burdensome rules jeopardize wellness programs that improve employee health, can increase productivity and reduce health care spending.

A House committee spokeswoman told CNBC that those opposed to the bill are spreading false informationin a desperate attempt to deny employees the choice to participate in a voluntary program that can reduce health insurance costs and encourage healthy lifestyle choices.

Read more:

Deadly fungal infection that doctors have been fearing now reported in U.S.

Obamacare repeal guts crucial public health spending, including prevention of disease outbreaks

These 12 superbugs pose the greatest threat to human health, WHO says

Go here to read the rest:
Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill - Washington Post

It's been a rough 12 months for Myriad Genetics (NASDAQ:MYGN) and Opko Health (NASDAQ:OPK). Myriad lost nearly half of its market cap during the period, while Opko stock is down around 20%.

Could better days be ahead for these two stocks? And which is the better pick for long-term investors? Here's how Myriad Genetics and Opko Health stack up against each other.

Image source: Getty Images.

There are three primary arguments in favor of buying Myriad Genetics stock. The company is a leader in the U.S. hereditary cancer screening market and is poised to expand its lead. Myriad is quickly growing its non-hereditary cancer business. The company also has significant opportunities in international markets.

How does Myriad plan to grow its U.S. hereditary cancer business? The greatest potential lies in expanding testing beyond breast cancer patients. A key to achieving this objective is with Myriad's myRisk, a single comprehensive DNA test that screens for breast cancer, ovarian cancer, colon cancer, uterine cancer, melanoma, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and gastric cancer.

In Myriad Genetics' fiscal year 2013, only 1% of total testing volume stemmed from non-hereditary cancer screening. The company expects to report that figure is roughly 67% for fiscal year 2017. One primary product making this growth possible is GeneSight, a genomic test used to help physicians prescribe the correct psychiatric medications for patients. Myriad picked up GeneSight with its acquisition last year of Assurex Health.

As for international growth, Myriad is looking over the short term to expand primarily in the Canadian and major European markets. Over the longer term, though, the company plans to grow significantly in Japan, China, and Brazil.

Myriad's management team thinks the company can grow revenue at an average annual rate of more than 10% with an operating margin of at least 30%. The stock is up so far in 2017, thanks to a string of good news for the company -- including positive coverage decisions for Myriad's EndoPredict breast cancer test by multiple Blue Cross Blue Shield plans.

There are two key things to look at with Opko Health: the company's current products and services and its pipeline prospects. Opko currently gets over 80% of its revenue from services provided by Bio-Reference Labs, which it acquired in 2015. Bio-Reference generates solid cash flow and helps Opko market its 4Kscore prostate cancer DNA test.

Opko also has two drugs on the market. Varubi, which is used to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (NINV), is licensed to Tesaro. Rayaldee won U.S. regulatory approval in June 2016 for thetreatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) in adults with stage 3 or 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although it's still relatively early in the commercial launch of Rayaldee, the potential for the drug appears to be quite promising. CKD is the ninth leading cause of death, with most CKD patients dying from cardiovascular disease precipitated by SHPT. There aren't any great options for treating SHPT other than Rayaldee.

Opko has several pipeline candidates. The most eagerly anticipated product is human growth hormone hGH-CTP that Opko is developing in partnership withPfizer. Opko reported disappointing results from a late-stage study of hGH-CTP.However, the company saw some outliers in the clinical data that gave hope that the hormone could potentially still win regulatory approval. Opko and Pfizer are working to advance to a regulatory filing based on an additional statistical analysis of the data.

Unlike Myriad Genetics, Opko isn't turning a profit right now. The company reported a net loss in 2016 of $25 million. However, its bottom line has improved and should get a big boost if Rayaldee picks up steam.

Quite frankly, both of these stocks are risky. Myriad Genetics faces intense competition in the DNA screening business. It's also at the mercy of payers' reimbursement decisions. Opko Health could be derailed if its hGH-CTP doesn't win approval or if Rayaldee sales don't meet expectations.

Personally, my risk tolerance isn't enough for me to buy either of these stocks. However, I thinkOpko gets the nod as the better choice between the two. The basis of my decision was on the opportunity that Opko has if things go its way. Granted, that might not happen. But if the company enjoys some good luck, the stock could soar.

Keith Speights owns shares of Pfizer. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Read more from the original source:
Better Buy: Myriad Genetics, Inc. vs. Opko Health, Inc. - Motley Fool

The strain of bird flu that infected a chicken farm in Tennessee in recent days shares the same name as a form of the virus that has killed humans in China, but is genetically distinct from it, U.S. authorities said on Tuesday.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture identified the strain in Tennessee as H7N9, following a full genome sequencing of samples from the farm. It said all eight gene segments of the virus had North American wild bird lineage.

On Sunday, the USDA confirmed the farm in Tennessee was infected with highly pathogenic bird flu, making it the first case in a commercial U.S. operation in more than a year.

In China, at least 112 people have died from H7N9 bird flu this winter, Xinhua news agency said on Friday.

However, that virus has Eurasian lineage, U.S. flu experts said.

Even though the numbers and the letters are the same, if you look at the genetic fingerprint of that virus, it is different, said Dan Jernigan, director of the influenza division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Jernigan said the risk to humans from the virus found in Tennessee is low. Genome sequencing shows the H7N9 virus did not have genetic features present in the virus in China that make it easier for humans to become infected, he said.

The virus found in Tennessee likely mutated to become highly pathogenic from a less dangerous, low pathogenic form, he said.

Disease experts fear a deadly strain of bird flu could mutate into a form that could be passed easily between people and become a pandemic.

Multiple outbreaks of the virus have been reported in poultry farms and wild flocks across Europe, Africa and Asia in the past six months. Most involved strains that were low risks for human health, but the sheer number of different types, and their simultaneous presence in so many parts of the world, has increased the risk of viruses mixing and mutating - and possibly jumping to people, according to disease experts.

Chinas Center for Disease Control and Prevention has said the majority of people infected by H7N9 in China reported exposure to poultry, especially at live markets.

Identifying the viruses in Tennessee and China both as H7N9 is similar to having two cars from different states with the same license plate number, said Carol Cardona, avian flu expert at the University of Minnesota.

The strain in Tennessee is NOT the same as the China H7N9 virus that has impacted poultry and infected humans in Asia, the USDA emphasized in a statement.

While the subtype is the same as the China H7N9 lineage that emerged in 2013, this is a different virus and is genetically distinct from the China H7N9 lineage, the USDA added.

U.S. officials are working to determine how the Tennessee farm, which was a supplier to Tyson Foods Inc, became infected. All 73,500 birds there were killed by the disease or suffocated with foam to prevent its spread.

Tyson, the worlds biggest chicken company, is hopeful this is an isolated incident, spokesman Worth Sparkman said.

Authorities have not identified the name of the farm or the town in Lincoln County, Tennessee, where it is located.

(Editing by Matthew Lewis and Bernard Orr)

More:
Tennessee Bird Flu Shares Name, Not Genetics, Of Feared China Strain - Huffington Post

No one wants to talk about cancer. A disease that has taken the lives of so many, even the word itself has an ominous connotation. But as much as we dont want to talk about it, new genetic technology suggests that starting the conversation about your familys cancer history might be in everyones best interest.

In her new book, "A Cancer in the Family: Take Control of your Genetic Inheritance," Dr. Theodora Ross addresses how our familys medical history plays a role in our health. To shed some light on the genetics of cancer, as well as genetic counseling, Ross spoke with Take Care to explain the importance of knowing your family history. Ross, a cancer geneticist, is director of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Centers cancer genetics program.

First and foremost, Ross says that while you may feel theres nothing you can do about an impending cancer diagnosis, knowing is always better than not knowing. Ross herself was hesitant to find out about her own genetics, even though she's a cancer expert and has a family history of the disease, including a sister with breast cancer. But when she developed a melanoma in 2004, she decided it was time to talk to a geneticist and a genetic counselor.

Ross attributes her hesitation to truthiness, which occurs when we want something to be true. Often when it comes to health, we ignore or deny potential problems. We dont go to doctors when were healthy, we dont want to believe there could be a problem, and so we dont look.

But Ross says knowing the family history of a patient is an important step in prevention, and helps not only the patient, but researchers too. Genetic counselors can go to physicians and obtain medical records, which gives researchers more data to work with, and gives patients an accurate understanding of their family history.

According to Ross, the most common genetically inherited cancer syndrome is Lynch syndrome, which occurs when there is a mutation in mismatched repaired genes. This mutation will lead to a predisposition to colon, endometrial, ovarian, pancreatic, and other cancers. The kicker? Only 5 percent of people with this syndrome actually know they have it, and its common. About one in 300 have it, says Ross. And if they knew, they could carry out preventative measures such as frequent colonoscopies and check-ups.

Comprehensive genetic testing is becoming cheap enough, according to Ross, for people to seek out this information at a reasonable cost. Genetic counselors, she says, have an incredible ability to connect with their patients while providing them with the information they need to make the most of their genetic history. Talking about cancer in the family can be a scary conversation, but its crucial, says Ross, to aid in our efforts towards prevention.

Follow this link:
Genetics and cancer: why testing can aid prevention - WRVO Public Media

The meltwater stonefly has adapted to a very specific and extreme niche the cold, clear water that pours off of the melting ice and snow from the glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana. This bug is on the leading edge of climate change because its frigid mountain habitat is rapidly disappearing. Since 1850, 85 percent of the ice in Glacier has disappeared, and all of it is forecast to vanish completely by 2020.

In a study published in 2016, researchers found the cold-loving insect in trouble. Their physiology requires really, really cold water, and they cant survive once the water gets above an average of 9 degrees Centigrade during August, said Joe Giersch, a biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), who has studied this and a similar insect, the western glacier stonefly.

Meltwater stoneflies and western glacier stoneflies move upstream to find cold water as things warm, and because of steeper mountain topography, populations become separated. This has interrupted gene flow, causing some genetics to disappear. As genes dwindle, the species is losing genetic variation and likely adaptive capacity the genetics that give species the ability to evolve needed traits as habitat conditions change. Its a big part of why the meltwater stonefly (Lednia tumana) is being considered for listing as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act.

And many of its fellow high-altitude insects are in trouble too. This stonefly, Giersch and his co-authors wrote, likely represents a guild of species facing similar threats in alpine headwaters worldwide.

There is a huge unknown when it comes to protecting the meltwater stonefly and other species. Biologists are missing a huge piece of the puzzle knowing which genetics will give species the evolutionary lift that allows them to adapt successfully to a warmer world. This hidden DNA and the possibly important traits it represents are known as cryptic diversity, and much of it is being lost, experts say, as the range of species contracts, fragments, and otherwise changes. Yet this DNA is vital because it contains information on different lineages and on species that are emerging, the cutting edge of evolution. Losing it will greatly complicate the task of assessing how climate change will affect biodiversity and what to protect.

Genetic diversity in foundational plant species alpine flowers, cottonwoods, or tall grass prairie drive hundreds if not thousands of other species.

What disappears before we know it could have far-reaching consequences. A long-term research project on the genetic variations in cottonwood trees, called the Cottonwood Ecology Group, found that the genotype of a tree affects the communities of some 700 insect species that depend on it, as well as chemical emissions, microbes, bacteria, lichens, beavers, and birds that feed on the insects. Should important genotypes disappear, whole ecological communities could change in unpredictable ways. Genetic diversity in foundational plant species alpine flowers, cottonwoods, or tall grass prairie drive hundreds if not thousands of other species, said Thomas Whitham who heads the project at Northern Arizona University. Thats why climate change is an evolutionary event.

Often where the climate is changing fastest is where species are affected most. The bull trout, a threatened species that depends on very cold water in the Pacific Northwest, is also being impacted by warming. What we found is that genetic diversity is lowest in those locations that are going to experience the greatest climate change and the most stressful environmental conditions, said Ryan Kovach, a USGS fisheries biologist in Glacier National Park who has published papers on the subject of bull trout and climate. In other words they dont have genetic diversity where they are most likely to need it. Thats because there are fewer fish in these habitats because of already stressful conditions.

These kinds of genetic studies are a race against climate warming that is happening far faster than predicted. Although genetic diversity is literally the fundamental building block for all life, it is almost completely ignored in the context of climate change, said Kovach.

Carsten Nowak, a conservation biologist at the Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum in Gelnhausen, Germany, has also studied the genetics of climate change response in alpine insects, as well as in wolves and other species.

In 2011 Nowak and his colleagues conducted research in high-country Europe that looked at seven species of caddis fly and one species each of mayfly and stonefly, which like the stoneflies in Glacier National Park are cold-loving bugs. The scientists examined the species genetics and divided them into a finer scale, populations within the species that are genetically distinct from each other, something known as Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs).

If the climate scenario doesnt change, according to their work, 79 percent of the ESUs will go extinct by 2080, decimating hidden genetic diversity. If greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by the amount needed to cap global warming at 2 degrees Celsius, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has urged, then 59 percent of the ESUs are projected to disappear.

Nowaks study predicted that the loss of genetic diversity in Europe would be most marked in the Mediterranean region of southern Europe, which is also the area of the continent with the greatest genetic diversity. Even if populations disappear, no one knows what the loss represents. We need to know if there are ten populations and nine disappear does that matter? Nowak said.

Portuguese researchers forecasted in a paper published in February of 2016 that many lineages of amphibians and reptiles on the Iberian peninsula, which is expected to be hardest hit by warmer and drier weather, could disappear or contract within the next half century, causing a loss of cryptic diversity with implications to evolutionary processes.

These losses are important because a species, for example, that is exposed to a new disease, might not be able to evolve resistance to it because the genetics that govern immune response are gone. Or the genes that allow a fish or stonefly to regulate its temperature in warmer water might disappear.

The good news is that there has been a revolution in the ability to sequence DNA its now much faster and far cheaper than ever. The goal of many conservation scientists is to sequence the genomes of a species and then understand which section is responsible for adaptation, including such traits as migratory abilities, dispersal, and the ability to adapt to warmer temperature. Once thats done, it allows managers to allocate scarce resources to protect the populations most essential for adapting to changing conditions.

Can we use the Indian tiger to repopulate Siberia?

Nowak cited the example of the Siberian tiger, whose population has dwindled to a few hundred. Can we use the Indian tiger to repopulate Siberia? he asked rhetorically. If you have a lot of Evolutionary Significant Units and know what they represent, you might want some that are better at cold adaptation or fish catching, to repopulate Siberia. You cant just protect the species, you have to protect the populations, the small units of a species that might have the genes necessary for adaptation. Knowing what they represent is the hard part.

As ecologically important species come on line with their adaptation capacity mapped, it will give managers a powerful tool to triage species to protect the adaptation genetics. They might even affect gene rescues by focusing on the populations with the most vital genes. One of the options we have for the stonefly is translocation moving one population to a different location, said Giersch. Thats after we investigate the hidden adaptations within the DNA to figure out which ones have the ability to adapt to warmer temperatures. Thats a ways down the road.

Two species of trees have recently had their climate genes mapped and adaptive capacity located. A study published in September of 2016 found that two distantly related trees interior spruce and lodgepole pine use the same set of 47 genes to deal with temperature, precipitation and other climate variables. Knowing about these adaptations trees is important because they migrate slowly, over generations, and assisted migration efforts with trees are already underway. We have to understand climate adaptation in other conifers so we can address trees that are becoming mismatched to their environment, said Sally Aitken, a professor of forest and conservation science at the University of British Columbia. That will inform better management strategies, she said, and enable us to plant trees that are more likely to thrive and adapt more quickly to climate change.

By: C. Thompson, E. David, M. Freestone, and C.T. Robinson

Western North American Naturalist, Vol. 73, No. 2 (July 2013), pp. 137-147

Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum, Brigham Young University

Comments are closed.

View original post here:
How Global Warming Is Threatening Genetic Diversity | JSTOR Daily - JSTOR Daily

pixabay

By Wayne KondroMar. 10, 2017 , 6:00 PM

A vote in Canadas Parliament to approve a genetic privacy bill is creating a self-inflicted political headache for Prime Minister Justin Trudeaus Liberal governmentand could result in a relatively rare and unusual court case.

The Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, originally introduced in 2013 by now-retired Liberal Senator James Cowan, is aimed at preventing the use of information generated by genetic tests to deny health insurance, employment, and housing, or to influence child custody and adoption decisions. It calls for fines of up to $740,000 and prison terms of up to 5 years for anyone who requires any Canadian to undergo a genetic test, or to disclose test results, in order to obtain insurance or enter into legal or business relationships. The bill bars discrimination on the grounds of genetics, and the sharing of genetic test results without written consent (with exemptions for researchers and doctors).

Supporters said the law is needed to encourage Canadians to make greater use of genetic testing. Currently, they claimed, many Canadians refuse genetic tests in the course of care or clinical trials because they fear insurers or others could use the results against them. But opponents of the bill, including health and life insurers, argued a ban would increase treatment and insurance costs. Instead, insurers support a voluntary code regulating the use of genetic tests in underwriting life insurance policies; it would allow insurers to require tests only for policies worth more than $185,500. Trudeaus Liberal Party cabinet also formally opposed the measure, with Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould arguing that the bill is unconstitutional because it intrudes on powers given to Canadas 13 provincial and territorial governmentsto regulate insurance.

Those arguments, however, failed to sway lawmakers. On 9 March, members of Parliament voted 22260 to approve the measure. More than 100 Liberal members voted for the bill, taking advantage of a so-called free vote, which allows members to vote their conscience rather follow the party line.

The vote was applauded by Bev Heim-Myers, chair of the Canadian Coalition for Genetic Fairness in Kitchener, which represents 18 disease-based organizations. Finally, the voices of Canadians, and the voices of science and medicine, were heard, she says.

The result has prompted Trudeaus government to consider extraordinary measures to block the legislation. Normally, the bill would become law once it is approved by Canadas governor-general (and in this case, after Canadas Senate approves a minor amendment requested by the House of Commons). The governor-general, who represents the queen of England, is a holdover from Canadas past as a British colony, and typically rubber stamps legislation passed by Parliament.

To delay and potentially kill the legislation, Trudeaus government is considering not sending the bill to the governor-general (a tactic that doesnt appear to have been used since the 1920s), and instead asking Canadas Supreme Court to rule on the bills constitutionality. That process could take up to 2 years.

Cowan, the bills original sponsor, says he cant fathom the rationale behind the governments stance. Is it really up to the government of Canada to defend provincial jurisdiction, or the insurance industry? he asks.

Prominent legal scholars are skeptical of the governments claim that the law is unconstitutional. Canadas Supreme Court has previously held that federal criminal law can apply to regulating food, drugs, guns, and other areas in which the goal is to mitigate so-called social evils, they note. And the claim that the bill infringes on provincial power to regulate insurance may not hold up, because the law applies equally to all commercial sectors.

Please note that, in an effort to combat spam, comments with hyperlinks will not be published.

Go here to read the rest:
Canada's new genetic privacy law is causing huge headaches for Justin Trudeau - Science Magazine

A new bill introduced by Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and approved by the House Ways and Means Committee would allow corporations to force employees to undergo genetic testing and then share those results with third parties. In theory, this is already illegal, thanks to a 2008 law known as GINA. This type of behavior is also regulated by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).

The new House bill, HR 1313, gets around these issues by preemptively declaring that workplace wellness programs offered in conjunction with an employers sponsored health care plan shall be considered to be in compliance with GINA, the ADA, and other workplace protections. Given that the relevant section of GINA (section 202(b)(2)) specifically states that it shall be unlawful for employers to gather genetic information on employees without the express permission and consent of the employee in question, the GOP just wrote a privacy-shredding exception into a bill and then quietly passed that bill through committee.

Workplace wellness programs have been controversial because they largely dont seem to work, but remain popular as a method of pushing healthcare costs on to employees. Historically, companies have been allowed to offer these programs (and to enforce fiscal penalties on employees that refuse to meet their goals). But HR 1313 goes farther than simply allowing genetic profiling of employees because an employer offers insurance coverage. The bill actually stipulates that any company with any program with a workplace wellness component can mandate genetic collection whether it provides insurance or not. It also states:

[T]he collection of information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member shall not be considered an unlawful acquisition of genetic information with respect to another family member as part of a workplace wellness program. [emphasis added]

Under the GOPs bill, which has already passed through one committee vote with 22 Republicans voting for it and 17 Democrats against, it would be explicitly legal for companies to collect genetic information on your family members. Its also legal for them to share that information with third parties, in complete and total abrogation of the privacy protections passed in 2008.

The American Society for Human Genetics has blasted the bill:

H.R.1313 would effectively repeal these protections by allowing employers to ask employees invasive questions about their and their families health, including genetic tests they, their spouses, and their children may have undergone. GINAs requirement that employees genetic information collected through a workplace wellness program only be shared with health care professionals would no longer apply.

HR 1313 is a travesty. It guts previous protections passed by Congress intended to protect the most fundamentally personal information any human possesses their own genetic code. It would allow corporations to share that data with third parties for analysis without stripping it of identifying information (GINA forbids this, but 1313 supersedes GINA). It would allow companies to levy fines up to 30% of the cost of health premiums on the employees who fail to cooperate. The ASHG notes that the average premium cost for employees in 2016 was $18,142, meaning families could face an additional $5,443 in premium costs per year for refusing to hand over their genetic and health information.

View post:
New GOP bill lets companies force you to take genetic tests, lets them share results with third parties - ExtremeTech