Genetic testing is advancing fast—but without strong privacy laws, your DNA isn’t safe.
For 40 years, genetic testing has evolved from a cutting-edge scientific curiosity into a tool that touches nearly every part of our lives—from healthcare to criminal justice to basic identification. Even after the monumental Human Genome Project mapped the chemical sequence of the entire human genome, genetic testing hasn’t stopped advancing. That should be cause for celebration. Instead, it’s cause for concern.
Because while the science races ahead, our laws lag dangerously behind. There are still no comprehensive protections for genetic privacy, leaving deeply personal DNA data exposed to misuse. In a world where your genome can reveal everything from health risks to ancestry, this isn’t just a gap in policy—it’s a breach of trust.
This isn’t a new problem. In fact, when the Human Genome Project was completed, experts already called for policies to protect individuals’ genetic information. Yet Canada still has no laws preventing DNA data from being hacked or sold. The technology has existed since 2003 and has only grown more sophisticated over the past 22 years. With every advancement, new loopholes emerge—loopholes that our current privacy laws fail to address. It’s unacceptable.
If genetic testing is to fulfill its promise of being accessible, affordable, and a cornerstone of personalized medicine, its benefits are clear: predicting potential illnesses and tailoring treatments to individuals. These advancements could transform healthcare. But without robust privacy laws to safeguard people’s genetic information, the technology’s promise comes with serious risks—data could be shared or sold without consent, turning a medical breakthrough into a privacy nightmare.
While each country has its own agencies to protect personal data, gaps remain. In the U.S., for example, the FTC Act shields citizens from misleading marketing of genetically modified supplements—but broader protections for genetic data are still lacking.
Canada’s Genetic Non-Discrimination Act prevents individuals from being forced to take genetic tests or disclose results, primarily protecting against workplace discrimination. While a step in the right direction, it offers no safeguards against genetic information being shared online or between practitioners.
The only protections for genetic information in Canada come from general privacy laws, which contain loopholes due to their lack of specificity. Alarmingly, nothing prevents insurance companies from accessing individuals’ genetic data. This is a serious concern: your genome may reveal potential health risks that may never actually manifest, yet insurers could still hike premiums, putting people’s financial well-being at risk.
Genetic privacy may feel distant, but its consequences are already visible. In 2023, 6.9 million profiles on the ancestry site 23andMewere hacked, exposing how much personal information each genome contains and how vulnerable people are if that data is sold or leaked. Debates over sending ancestry data to pharmaceutical companies for research often overlook a crucial point: this information is deeply personal and should never be used without clear, informed consent.
The need for genome-specific privacy laws is urgent. Unlike passwords, genetic information can’t be changed or replaced if compromised. Protecting it isn’t impossible—countries like South Korea have long implemented safeguards, such as the Bioethics and Biosafety Act. Establishing a board of bioethicists, geneticists, and lawmakers is crucial to crafting, monitoring, and updating regulations that keep pace with the rapidly evolving field of genome sequencing.
Genetic privacy violations aren’t going away, and the urgency to address them will only intensify as testing becomes more widespread.
Margaret is a third-year Biology Student and The Journal’s Postscript editor
Tags
Ancestry, DNA, genetics, Privacy
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.