DNA: Personal Information that Should be Protected or Could Benefit Research?

Today I read two editorials on hospitals taking blood samples from newborns. The editorials are from Grand Rapids Press and the magazine Nature. The main issue both of these articles are discussing is; hospitals are taking newborn blood samples and are using them for more then just screening the baby for potential diseases. Hospitals are keeping the samples for further research without parent’s knowledge. In order for hospitals to take newborn’s blood samples, health care workers need to fully inform parents of what is going to be done with the blood and how long it will be stored for.

The editorial written in Nature is about healthcare professionals taking samples of newborn’s blood for genetic screening. The article stated, hospitals are keeping newborn’s blood for unrelated biomedical research without parental consent (“Nature”). The article explains that after babies are born a health-care worker pricks the heel of a baby and takes a blood sample to test for rare genetic disorders (“Nature”). After the blood is tested, some blood is retained and stripped of any identifying information and used for quality insurance and unrelated biomedical research (“Nature”).

The Author, whose name not released by Nature, states that, “The problem is not only that many parents miss the heel-prick test at the time, but that they can be unaware of it altogether” (“Nature”). The author believes the best solution for making newborn blood testing straightforward for parents is to clearly explain to the parents what the blood samples are being taken for, and to give them more choices about what is done with the samples after screening has occurred (“Nature”).  The author also believes if parents are aware and consent to what health care professionals and government are doing with their newborn’s blood, then the government can use the blood for research.

In The Grand Rapids Press, the editorial broad who wrote the article is accrediting the Michigan Department of Community Health for putting in new policies that will better shield the privacy of the newborns and give more say over what happens to their genetic material (“Grand Rapids Press”). The editors believe that when these new policies start parents should see the value in storing blood information for themselves and others (“Grand Rapids Press”).

One of the editorial board’s reasons for why newborn blood screening is beneficial is the blood is used at birth to screen for 49 hereditary and genetic conditions (“Grand Rapids Press”). After those tests, Michigan hospitals send the blood to Wayne State University where the blood samples create a rich and diverse population sample for researchers to test with (“Grand Rapids Press”).  The blood samples are useful for scientists because they are taken at birth from all children and before environmental factors come into play (“Grand Rapids Press”). This allows for better research for scientists. The author clearly says, “The Department of Community Health has taken prudent steps to make sure genetic information is not compromised. The new policy marks a positive step toward transparency for everyone” (“Grand Rapids Press”).

The editorial from the Grand Rapids Press is much more convincing because it provides strong evidence to show how newborn blood samples can benefit the population.

From a medical standpoint, I feel that taking newborn blood samples will greatly help research. Scientists can use the extensive samples to do research on disorders, vaccines, and hopefully create cures for diseases and infections.