26 | New Scientist | 10 August 2019
Editor’s pick
Embed data ethics into
health DNA projects
20 July, p 12
From Emma Martins,
Office of the Data Protection
Authority, Bailiwick of Guernsey
Adam Vaughan explores plans
for genetic testing by England’s
National Health Service. Such
testing has the potential to offer
significant benefits to individuals
and to society. But it is misguided
and even dangerous to talk of
anonymised data in this context.
There is much discussion about how
easy it is to reidentify supposedly
anonymous genetic information.
The concern isn’t how specifically
the data may be linked to an
individual; it is the fact that
there is a possibility that it can be.
Health secretary Matt Hancock
says that individuals will be asked
to give their consent to anonymous
sharing of their data. But when
we talk about consent, we must
address the fact that it isn’t possible
to unequivocally promise people
that their data will remain entirely
anonymous. Pretending otherwise
risks further eroding the already
fragile levels of trust the public
has in data handling.
Genetic privacy may also be
compromised for those who aren’t
tested. They can be identified
from DNA data provided by others
(20 October 2018, p 14). This
long-range familial DNA research
raises questions about ethics,
consent and access by law
enforcement and other agencies.
Consent is only legitimate
when it is given with full knowledge
and understanding. So long as
companies that profit from our
data continue to do so in ways that
are far from clear and anything but
accountable, the public will be on
the back foot.
Data privacy advocates are
often perceived as being opposed
to progress. That is untrue: we seek
a future that embeds data ethics
into projects like this to ensure that
progress builds on human values,
rather than trampling on them.Lessons of the moon
mission for us on Earth13 July, p 36
From Frank Dawson,
Liverpool, UK
The juxtaposition of your articles
on the moon landing and news
of Arctic wildfires (p 14) was
interesting. You imagine a moon
base in 2069 producing textiles
and art that command high prices
back on our planet. And on Earth
today, one of the feedback effects
of global warming seems to be in
full swing – rather sooner than
had been predicted – as Arctic
peatlands release carbon dioxide.
By 2069, we are likely to have
a lot more to preoccupy our minds
than going back to the moon. The
best thing we can take from the
story of the first moon landing is
that it seemed impossible and was
immensely difficult to achieve,
and yet it happened. That gives us
a flicker of hope. But all those who
are aware of the seriousness of the
situation need to acknowledge
that the future of our species, as
well as that of many others being
driven to extinction, will be very
grim if we carry on as we are or
fail to do enough.13 July, p 42
From Paul Tavener,
Waterlooville, Hampshire, UK
Given all that SpaceX has done
to open up the space frontier by
reducing costs and developing
reusable rockets, I was surprised
to read that the best that could be
said about SpaceX were comments
about its chief executive’s use of
the word “colonising”. If more
rockets were reused, as SpaceX’s
Falcon 9 can be, unlike NASA’s
Space Launch System, that would
help protect our environment.Leader, 13 July
From Denis Watkins, Felindre
Farchog, Pembrokeshire, UK
You urge that we return to the
moon “for all the right reasons”
and say lunar bases will become
staging posts for exploring Mars
and the rest of the solar system.
The “right reasons” probably
won’t be a priority unless we first
tackle the problem of our ancient
hunter-gatherer brains.
Humanity is well-practised
in making Earth uninhabitable,
species extinct and air and water
polluted. Climate change deniers
count some of the world’s most
powerful political leaders amongtheir ranks. Is there any reason
to think that we would behave
differently in space?All is not lost if we fund
a hunt for helium
13 July, p 22
From Jon Gluyas, Durham, UK
and Chris Ballentine, Oxford, UK
Chanda Prescod-Weinstein is
correct to highlight the global
helium supply crisis. We should
worry enormously about the
paucity of helium reserves,
with production for export as a
by-product of natural gas limited
to the US, Qatar and Algeria. Each
of these has its own quirks that
could limit helium production.
The problem is that, until
now, no one has looked for helium
or even known how to look for it.
Eight years ago, our team set about
developing a strategy for this. With
funding from Norwegian energy
company Equinor, we considered
not just the sources of the helium
from radioactive decay, but also
how it escapes and is concentrated
in Earth’s crust. Four years ago,
we tested our strategy in the
Tanzanian section of the East
African Rift, where gas seepsViews You r le t te r s