The journal Science recently published an article about the discovery of a longevity gene and other newspapers and magazines ran with the story. However within days of the publication questions were raised about the way the genes were identified, questions so technical about the type of gene chip used that the error would never have been caught for the average reader like you and me.

While all this has been playing out in academia and the media, an excellent editorial appeared in the International Herald Tribune this weekend that raises thoughtful ethical questions about the consequences of testing for this gene. Amy Boesky, an associate professor of English at Boston College, herself a carrier of the BRCA (breast cancer) gene, has thought a lot about what it means to know you have a genetic predisposition for a particular illness. In this guest editorial, she asks:

• What happens to us when we begin to see each other’s futures in terms of our DNA?
• Should we test for this gene?
• Should genes be patented?
• Should personal genetic test kits be regulated?
• How and where should these tests be made available?

Given the field I’m in, a key issue for me is what happens when insurance companies get ahold of this information – how will this impact the cost of health care premiums? What about the costs of long-term health insurance?

For more information about the “longevity gene” controversy, Newsweek published a good article about how a “good study became bad science”. Unfortunately, despite the International Herald Tribune being a part of the New York Times, I have not been able to find a link to Ms. Boesky’s article.

So aside from the technical