by: Ewen Callaway

Texas health officials secretly transferred hundreds of newborn babies’ blood samples to the federal government to build a DNA database, a newspaper investigation has revealed.

According to The Texas Tribune, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) routinely collected blood samples from newborns to screen for a variety of health conditions, before throwing the samples out.

But beginning in 2002, the DSHS contracted Texas A&M University to store blood samples for potential use in medical research. These accumulated at rate of 800,000 per year. The DSHS did not obtain permission from parents, who sued the DSHS, which settled in November 2009.

Now the Tribune reveals that wasn’t the end of the matter. As it turns out, between 2003 and 2007, the DSHS also gave 800 anonymised blood samples to the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL) to help create a national mitochondrial DNA database.

This came to light after repeated open records requests filed by the Tribune turned up documents detailing the mtDNA programme. Apparently, these samples were part of a larger programme to build a national, perhaps international, DNA database that could be used to track down missing persons and solve cold cases.

Jim Harrington, the civil rights attorney who filed the blood spot lawsuit (pdf) last year on behalf of five Texas parents and who directs the Texas Civil Rights Project, suggests to the Tribune that the DSHS settled with the parents to avoid risking a court case that might have revealed the DNA database. “This explains the mystery of why they gave up so fast,” he says.

Email exchanges (pdfs here and here)  between state officials and Texas A&M, obtained by the Tribune, point to attempts to conceal efforts to use the DNA for any kind of research. The university had hoped to issue a press release detailing such efforts, but it acceded to the state’s request to keep quiet.

Why did the DSHS want to keep it a secret? The Tribune quotes one Texas health official’s explanation:

“Genetic privacy is a big ethical issue & even though … approval is required for use of the spots in most situations and great care is taken to protect the identity of the spots, a press release would most likely only generate negative publicity.”

The fear of a negative reaction is understandandable. Concerns over genetic privacy are growing – for example a recent study found that even anonymous collections of DNA can potentially be traced back to individuals. However, the DSHS appears only to have handed over mitochondrial DNA, which is next to impossible to trace to individuals.

Handling public fears about genetic privacy is certainly tricky, but concealing such an affair is not the answer – and only increases public mistrust.

original source: http://www.newscientist.com/

Help us fight for safe and clean energy — and stop the nuclear industry bailout. Please contribute today.

If you thought taxpayer-backed bailouts of Corporate America were over, guess again.

Yesterday President Obama broke a campaign promise and handed $8 billion to the nuclear industry in the form of a loan guarantee for dirty and dangerous nuclear reactors.

We need your help to push back.

As a presidential candidate, Obama said he would consider supporting new reactors only if we first solved the problems of security, waste, and proliferation. These problems have not been solved. New reactors remain a threat to public safety and the environment.

New reactors mean more radioactive waste piling up in populated areas around the country — waste that will be dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. That’s one reason the FBI has called nuclear facilities “target rich” environments for terrorists.

And the nuclear industry’s safety problems are myriad. Just last month, dangerously high levels of radioactive tritium — a cancer-causing carcinogen — were found leaking from pipes at a reactor in Vermont and polluting groundwater near the Connecticut River. Worse, there is still no guarantee we can avoid a Three Mile Island-type incident or a full-scale Chernobyl-like disaster.

But safety isn’t the only problem. After more than 50 years of depending on federal subsidies for its survival, the nuclear industry still can’t stand on its own. Even Wall Street bankers have concluded that new reactors are too risky to invest in, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the risk of default on new nuclear loans is “well above fifty percent.” So why is President Obama asking taxpayers to foot the bill?

Taxpayers have bailed out enough failing industries; we don’t need to add dirty and dangerous nuclear to the list. Will you help us to stop this nuclear industry bailout by supporting Friends of the Earth with a contribution of $25 or more today?

With safer, more reliable alternatives available, including wind and solar power and greater energy efficiency, there’s no reason to blow our tax dollars on dangerous new reactors. We need investments in truly green energy, not false solutions.

Friends of the Earth is helping to lead this fight, both on the ground and on the air. Last year, Senator Bob Bennett credited our TV ads with knocking an up-to-$50-billion bailout of the nuclear industry out of the federal stimulus package. And in just the last few days, we’ve carried the argument against a nuclear bailout through outlets including Time Magazine, USA Today, The Associated Press, CNN and the NBC Nightly News.

For more than a year, Friends of the Earth’s Tom Clements, an experienced anti-nuclear advocate, has been waging a multifaceted campaign on the ground in South Carolina to stop four proposed reactors from being built there. Tom is organizing grassroots activists, formally intervening in the regulatory process, and bringing a potentially precedent-setting lawsuit to the state Supreme Court this spring.

In the middle of this week’s storm, Senator James Inhofe constructed an “igloo” in Washington, DC and posted a sign reading “Honk if you heart global warming.” Senator Jim DeMint tweeted “It’s going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries uncle.” Rush Limbaugh and Fox News chimed in with story after story distorting the facts to fit their dishonest narrative.

Climate deniers like Inhofe and DeMint are willfully missing the point: Extreme weather is climate change! Not only does “Snowpocalypse” not disprove global warming, it actually matches scientific predictions that climate change will increase extreme weather events of many kinds, including heavy snowfalls in regions like the Northeast.

Together, we can and must stop this disinformation campaign. Jon Stewart just did a great job taking on the deniers. Check out a short clip from The Daily Show and help spread the truth about extreme weather.