【文章预读】

So regulations today often protect consumers from the mandatory disclosure of predictive tests. But the rules are patchy. In Britain the industry has agreed to a blanket moratorium, renewable every three years, on using predictive genetic information. The sole exception is Huntington’s chorea, where a test of one gene is infallible and has to be disclosed to an insurer for life cover worth more than £500,000 ($662,000). In America the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act bans health insurers (and employers) from using such results, but is silent on other types of insurance. In several countries life insurers may already ask for disclosure of predictive genetic tests for policies over a certain value.
But testing is rarely cut-and-dried. Ronnie Klein from the Geneva Association, an insurance-industry think-tank, says that, unlike Huntington’s, most illnesses stem from a number of factors, including lifestyle and environment, and a combination of genes. For example, although the ApoE4 allele increases the risk of Alzheimer’s, many without it still get the disease.
Some regulators, such as Germany’s, have outlawed direct-to-consumer tests. But nothing stops Germans from ordering from abroad, and, just as it became normal for life insurers to ask for family history, so insurers will surely eventually have access to relevant genetic information. The question will be what they are allowed to do with it. When blood tests for AIDS first appeared, insurers also fretted about adverse selection. Many jurisdictions ruled they could not be used for calculating health premiums, as these were a basic good, but could be used for life policies. As genetic testing spreads, society and insurers may face many similar difficult assessments.


【文章精讲】

So regulations today often protect consumers from the mandatory disclosure of predictive tests. But the rules are patchy. In Britain the industry has agreed to a blanket moratorium, renewable every three years, on using predictive genetic information. The sole exception is Huntington’s chorea, where a test of one gene is infallible and has to be disclosed to an insurer for life cover worth more than £500,000 ($662,000). In America the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act bans health insurers (and employers) from using such results, but is silent on other types of insurance. In several countries life insurers may already ask for disclosure of predictive genetic tests for policies over a certain value.

mandatory adj.强制的
patchy adj.不整齐的
- patch n.补丁
blanket adj.全部的 (affect everyone or everything)
moratorium n.暂停 (a time when a particular activity is not allowed)
sole adj.唯一的
Huntington’s chorea 亨廷顿舞蹈症
infallible adj.万无一失的
- fallible adj.会犯错的
- We’re all fallible.
silent adj.不语的

But testing is rarely cut-and-dried. Ronnie Klein from the Geneva Association, an insurance-industry think-tank, says that, unlike Huntington’s, most illnesses stem from a number of factors, including lifestyle and environment, and a combination of genes. For example, although the ApoE4 allele increases the risk of Alzheimer’s, many without it still get the disease.

cut-and-dried adj. 事先准备的，已经成定局的
- a cut-and-dried presentation
think-tank n.智囊团
stem from 由…造成

allele n.等位基因

Some regulators, such as Germany’s, have outlawed direct-to-consumer tests. But nothing stops Germans from ordering from abroad, and, just as it became normal for life insurers to ask for family history, so insurers will surely eventually have access to relevant genetic information. The question will be what they are allowed to do with it. When blood tests for AIDS first appeared, insurers also fretted about adverse selection. Many jurisdictions ruled they could not be used for calculating health premiums, as these were a basic good, but could be used for life policies. As genetic testing spreads, society and insurers may face many similar difficult assessments.

outlaw v.判定…违法
fret about 为…感到担忧
- fret v.烦恼
jurisdiction n.管辖范围
assessment n.评测


【推荐句式表达】

1.The sole exception is …
2.stem from …
3.fret about …