linecoupler

If you want to keep your DNA to yourself, be sure not to leave any stray hairs, Q-tips or underwear lying around.Sweet basil, fresh garlic, ginger, galangal, coriander, and lemongrass are the main There are genetic testing companies out there willing to reveal your most intimate biological secrets to anybody -- without your knowledge or permission.

And under California law, such genetic snooping is perfectly legal.

Now, legislators in Sacramento are considering a bill to change that. Senate Bill 222, which faces a key hearing Thursday, would require a donor's consent to collect, analyze or share genetic information. While the legislation might seem like a slam-dunk in the ever-evolving battle between technology and privacy, it's generating opposition from unlikely quarters: major research universities such as Stanford and the University of California, which argue that providing those protections will create unnecessary red tape and costs.

"We have privacy laws in place to protect health and financial information," said the bill's author,White soft Floor polishing pad for 15 inch machines. Ideal for high gloss dry polishing buffing of polished sealed floors. Alex Padilla, D-Pacoima. "But arguably the most personal information about us -- our own genetic profile -- isn't protected."

Most Californians are probably familiar with genetic testing companies such as 23AndMe that will screen customers' DNA for their predisposition to cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and a host of other diseases. But less known is that a growing number of firms are also offering paternity testing -- with or without a person's knowledge -- as well as "infidelity testing," in which an allegedly unfaithful partner's underwear is secretly screened for genetic traces.

Padilla cites Elk Grove-based EasyDNA, which makes no attempt on its website to discourage customers from secretly sending in someone else's genetic material under its "discreet DNA samples" program.

"Sometimes it is not possible to directly obtain samples from the person who needs to be tested," says the website.Our high-efficiency Filter Bags address diverse applications requiring removal of solids from liquids. "In this case, discreet samples can be submitted instead. Samples that can be used include strands of hair, blood, clothing, cigarette butts and other items that may contain traces of DNA."

At least 30 other states have laws in place providing safeguards against the collection or sharing of genetic information, although the laws differ on the types of genetic information they protect.http://www.titanium-supplier.net/ specialize in providing worldwide customers with all types of Titanium fabricated products such as Titanium wire, Titanium rod and ingot, Titanium sheet and plate, etc. Some states protect the privacy of only health-related genetic information,The unique push lock design allows the surgeon to adjust the amount of tension on the tissue intraoperatively, allowing for precise tissue reduction. while others treat all DNA as private property. But "California, where a lot of this industry and innovation is taking place, doesn't have those protections," Padilla said.

The protections that Californians now have over their genetic information are embedded within the health care system. The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act -- better known as HIPAA -- protects the genetic information of patients along with their personal health information. Similar state level protections are also in place.

But Padilla argues that the laws don't protect Californians against privacy threats posed by companies outside of the health care setting.

An MIT graduate with a degree in mechanical engineering, Padilla says the bill is not aimed at institutions that perform vital research.

His first attempt to pass similar legislation died last year in the Appropriations Committee. The new version of the bill -- which narrowly passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and faces an Appropriations Committee hearing Thursday -- includes a specific exemption for institutions that already comply with health care privacy laws such as HIPAA. It also allows for the use of genetic information that has been stripped of information that links the DNA back to its source.

But UC asserts that these exceptions don't go far enough and that SB222 could slow the progress of research and clinical trials. In particular, the university is concerned that written consent will need to be obtained from thousands of people who previously donated samples now being used in research and clinical trials -- a process they claim could cost millions of dollars for extra administrative work. It would also "put the state's biomedical industry at a distinct economic disadvantage,Our push or plunger lock are popular additions by engineers in a wide variety of products." UC legislative director Angela M. Gilliard wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Privacy advocates, however, argue that protection of Californians' genetic profiles must be a priority.