Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DNA Mis-use case settled: Researchers 'Banished'

bbsguru (586178) writes | more than 4 years ago


bbsguru (586178) writes "A court settlement has ended a controversial case of medical privacy abuse. From the NYTimes: "SUPAI, Ariz. — Seven years ago, the Havasupai Indians, who live in the deepest part of the Grand Canyon, issued a "banishment order" to keep Arizona State University employees from setting foot on their reservation, an ancient punishment for what they regarded as a genetic-era betrayal.

Members of the tiny tribe had given DNA samples to university researchers starting in 1990, hoping they might provide genetic clues to the tribe's high rate of diabetes.

But members learned their blood samples also had been used to study many other things, including mental illness and theories of the tribe's geographical origins that contradict their traditional stories.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Title is misleading (1)

FishRep (1718538) | more than 4 years ago | (#31942582)

The title is misleading. The researchers were not really banished. The tribe issued an order, which was outside the legal process and outside of this settlement.

Re:Title is misleading (1)

EldestPort (1693956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31943374)

No, of course the researchers were not really banished - which is probably why the title has the word 'banished' in quotes. Most competent people will know that it will not be a court who banishes anyone - if the court did do anything like this we know that the applicable term and the term which would be used in the title would be 'injunction' or 'restraining order'.

Re:Title is misleading (1)

EldestPort (1693956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31943478)

My point being, the title was not misleading.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?