Already distracted 24/7 by iPods, tall lattes with extra foam,
the download of special apps, and reality TV, Americans have found
a new form of entertainment and national diversion. As recently
reported, cheap do-it-yourself genetic testing is now
mainstream and in vogue. Once the domain of forensic experts,
anthropologists, and others sincerely seeking the secrets of their
past, self-administered DNA testing for some is now a hobby — just
like building model ships and trains and collecting
butterflies.
Doubtless, the subject has gained new traction with the
momentous discovery in central England of the remains of Richard
III, the English king. Using just a swab, scraper, and spittle, one
can now extract enough DNA to establish potential linkages to the
rich and famous.
Using biomedical science to seek new relatives seems based on
the revolutionary notion that existing relatives are not enough,
and that one yearns for more of them. This has huge implications
for feeding families that convene at Thanksgiving and Christmas —
and indeed for the meaning of the family as a societal unit.
Perhaps this new form of outreach is a symptom of loneliness. In
a well-wired world of about 7 billion people, where new friendships
are as easy to establish as the click of a mouse, we still do not
have enough social engagement. Even with social media allowing
unbridled narcissists to pretend, we still long for even larger
audiences and more adulation — confirming the principle that more
is less, and not enough.
The ironies for new self-esteem are limitless. A homebody might
discover that he or she is related to Sir Ernest Henry Shackleton,
the famous Anglo-Irish explorer of the Antarctic in the early
20th century, or to Sir Edmund Hillary, the New
Zealander who was first to scale Mount Everest. An awkward dancer
might even discover Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers as relatives.
While popularized DNA testing may ultimately be deemed a good
thing, there is also a potential dark side. Seeking
self-aggrandizement, it is not hard to think that an opportunist
might claim Bill Gates or Warren Buffett as ancestors. And imagine
the shock if someone discovered that he or she were related to the
unphotogenic North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un.
There is no limit to the way such DNA testing might be
conducted. Office and factory workers could take DNA breaks instead
of the more mundane coffee break. Fast food companies and others
with vast consumer franchises could offer a DNA swab with a burrito
or mocha cappuccino. Automotive companies could provide DNA testing
kits as standard features in every glove compartment. Further, DNA
testing would also give new meaning to the late 1970s disco era hit
by Sister Sledge, “We Are Family,” in which it is affirmed that
“everyone can see we’re together.” Because DNA testing can be
performed while reading a desktop monitor or handheld device, it
may therefore be added to the panoply of multitasking activities.
Home DNA testing could also allow new social bonds to be forged,
like pajama parties.
As with any new and successful enterprise, there will be need
for judicious oversight and government regulation. House and Senate
committees could expand their already burgeoning control agendas in
an unrelenting desire to monitor and interfere in even more human
endeavor, passing DNA regulatory bills without even reading them.
It is also not difficult to imagine a new Administration czar or
cabinet post to elevate national DNA testing, giving it White House
sponsorship. Democratic strategists might seek to broaden the scope
of DNA testing, identifying yet another voting segment of the
population wanting sponsorship, while the “I’ve got mine”
Republicans could claim enough existing ancestral linkages and
attempt to block the march of science.
