Search results

The COVID-19 pandemic brought into stark relief the intimate nexus between health and housing. This extraordinary infectious disease outbreak combined with the astounding lack of a clear, coordinated, prompt, and effective public health response in the U.S. created conditions and introduced practical challenges that left many disoriented-not only health care providers but also housing providers. Innumerable issues are worth examination, such as implications of moratoria on evictions and foreclosures, force majeure contract clauses, insurability of pandemic-related damages and disruptions, holdover tenancies and delayed occupancies, and possible abatement of rent or homeowner/condominium association dues in light of closed common facilities (such as fitness areas) or reduced benefits to be enjoyed with residential property; however, this article focuses on fair housing law and the ``direct threat'' exemption; finds it unlikely that COVID-19 is a disability, likely that the ``direct threat'' defense is available, and both determinations to be case-specific inquiries dependent upon rapidly-changing scientific understanding of this disease. By highlighting adequate housing as a human right for which the government has primary responsibility for ensuring its achievement, this article underscores the importance of finding a holistic solution to public health and housing problems before the next public health emergency arises.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has an important role to play in the governmental oversight of mobile health apps, ensuring consumer protections from unfair and deceptive trade practices and curtailing anti-competitive methods. The FTC's consumer protection structure and authority is outlined before reviewing the recent FTC enforcement activities taken on behalf of consumers and against developers of mhealth apps. The article concludes with identification of some challenges for the FTC and modest recommendations for strengthening the consumer protections it provides.

There has been growing recognition of the importance of diversity and inclusion of underrepresented minority populations, including immigrants, in genomic research and precision medicine. Achieving diversity has been difficult and has led some scholars to question whether the law is a help or a threat to the inclusion of underserved and underrepresented immigrant populations. In this commentary, I provide an overview of some of the many relevant legal issues affecting the inclusion of immigrants in genomic research and precision health initiatives, such as the All of UsSM Research Program. Development of research recruit­ment, retention, and data collection plans without also considering the legal and sociopolitical context within which such efforts are to be carried out is risky. Advanc­ing health policy with a goal of eliminating health disparities (or, at a minimum, ensur­ing that health disparities are not exacerbat­ed by genomic or precision health tech­nologies) requires us to acknowledge the negative effects that immigration policy and criminal justice policy have on the involve­ment of immigrants in such research and on their health directly. I conclude that it is not a question of whether the law is a help or a threat but, rather, whether we collectively will prioritize authentic diversity and inclu­sion policies and also insist on compliance with the laws intended to ensure the human right of every individual – regardless of im­migration status or national origin – to share in the advancement of science.Ethn Dis.2019;29(Suppl 3):641-650;doi:10.18865/ed.29.S3.641

Sports-related genetic testing is a sector of the diverse direct-to-consumer (DTC) industry that has not yet been examined thoroughly by academic scholars. A systematic search was used to identify companies in this sector and content analysis of online information was performed. More than a dozen companies were identified. Marketing practices observed generally did not target parents for child testing, and marketing images were mild compared to images used in popular media. Information was provided at a high reading level (industry-wide Flesh-Kincaid Grade Levels > 11). While ~75% of companies provide privacy policies and terms of service prior to purchase and ~40% provide scientific citations for their tests, <25% reported using American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) accredited or the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) certified laboratories. Tests ranged considerably in price (~$100–$1,100) and were substantively diverse. These findings highlight the need to appreciate nuances and avoid broad generalizations of this and other DTC sectors. Utilization of consumer protections available for e-commerce generally may adequately protect DTC genetics consumers without new federal legislation or regulation.

Genetic information is increasingly used at US border entry points, but the use of DNA in immigration contexts is not new. DNA testing for verification of identity or relationships for visa and asylum petitions began in the 1980s. Long-standing applications demonstrate both the utility and pitfalls of DNA testing in immigration contexts. Some of these pitfalls are shared with health-related contexts of DNA testing, but the power of government officials to deny immigration benefits, separate families, or make accusations of fraud among a vulnerable population elevates the potential harms, including stigmatization, discrimination, and coerced consent. We conducted semi-structured interviews with professional stakeholders on their understandings of the process of DNA testing, opinions on the role of DNA testing in immigration, and experiences with DNA applications in immigration. From the 22 interviews, we sourced 21 case examples involving DNA testing and supplemented these with 10 case examples provided by the study team. The 31 case examples capture instances of DNA testing for relationship or identity across five immigration contexts. Using the case examples, we developed three overarching utilities and six overarching pitfalls of DNA testing that apply across these immigration contexts. Our framework allows long-standing applications of DNA testing in immigration to inform stakeholders' approaches to applications in new contexts. As the use of DNA data in immigration contexts expands, its implementation should recognize the utility of DNA data to both migrants and government while guarding against pitfalls that could undermine the human rights and dignity of a vulnerable population.

In April 2018, the U.S. implemented a "zero-tolerance" immigration policy that would lead to the separation of more than 2,000 migrant families over the following months. By that summer, the policy and resultant family separations had generated a media storm that swept up the public. In early June, the government announced its consideration of DNA testing to aid in the detection of human trafficking in immigration contexts. Later that month, as the government retracted the child separation policy, the public began questioning how children and adults would be reunited and discussing the potential usefulness of DNA testing for those reunifications. Then in early July, the government announced that DNA testing was indeed being used, and by mid-month the public's outrage over the use of DNA was strong. We set out to examine the public dialogue on DNA testing—including misunderstandings and miscommunications—both in newspaper coverage and on Twitter in the 2-month summer period of 2018, at the height of public discussion of migrant family separations and then reunifications. We performed database searches identifying 263 newspaper articles and used Twitter's advanced search function identifying 153 Tweets containing discussion of the use of DNA for migrant family reunification. Upon the resulting sources, we performed content analysis, analyzing for slant on the immigration policy and the use of DNA tests using a combination of open and closed codes. Our analysis showed that perspectives on the use of DNA diverged in connection with perspectives on the immigration policy, and that there was a contrast among the cohorts in the stated utility of DNA testing. These findings offer insight into a) how DNA testing in a highly politicized immigration context was represented in media coverage and b) the public's understanding of the role that DNA testing could or should play in immigration. By detailing the role that comments from experts, stakeholders, and the public played in these discussions, we hope to provide lessons ...

ABSTRACTThis article assesses anthropological thinking about the race concept and its applications. Drawn from a broader national survey of geneticists' and anthropologists' views on race, in this analysis, we provide a qualitative account of anthropologists' perspectives. We delve deeper than simply asserting that "race is a social construct." Instead, we explore the differential ways in which anthropologists describe and interpret how race is constructed. Utilizing the heuristic of constructors, shifters, and reconcilers, we also illustrate the ways in which anthropologists conceptualize their interpretations of race along a broad spectrum as well as what these differential approaches reveal about the ideological and biological consequences of socially defined races, such as racism in general and racialized health disparities in particular. [race concept, social construction, racism, health disparities]