Anne Wojcicki Quotes

We recognized in 1996 that, with progress in the field of genetics accelerating at a breathtaking pace, we need to ensure that advances in treatment and prevention of disease do not constitute a new basis for discrimination.

The Human Genome Project alone is the Full Employment Act for bioethicists.

Your genetic profile may qualify you for the lowest insurance rate ever offered! You don’t have to subsidize anyone else’s inferior genes again! DNA Life Insurance Company introduces Immortal Life, the policy for the superior man or woman with unsurpassed gene fitness.

The Human Genome Project has given us a genetic parts list.

DNA sequencing opens vast ethical issues. We shall be able to know who has defective genes. What will it mean when we can be sure we're not all born equal? Worked out, the implications will scare a lot of people. Insurance companies will not want to cover those with a genetic predisposition to illness, for example. Here lurk myriad lawsuits.

There's massive government initiatives going around the world, and you see that there's a real enthusiasm for genetics.

TIVO was a big shift in how people watched TV, but everyone understood the concept of TV. No one really understands the concept of, well why would I want my genetic information?

Just as we have addressed discrimination based on race, gender, and age, we must now prevent discrimination based on genetic information.

The science of genetics will complicate immensely national health insurance.

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about genetic information and what you can and cannot learn. One of the things we try to do is educate individuals that knowing information is empowering.

Like the early days of the Internet, the dawn of personal genomics promises benefits and pitfalls that no one can foresee.

Your genome isn't really secret.

I didn't want my genome to be sequenced by any of the companies that were out there doing the partial sequences just from the point of view of commercialisation.

I think genetic research is a fascinating and fertile area.

Not only can consumers handle their personal genetic information, but they are getting genomically oriented and anchored about such data.

I'm a genetic optimist.

My father and I made genetics history. We were the first African-Americans and the first father and son anywhere to have their genomes sequenced.

We all want our genetic information. Why would you not want genetic information?

As a Christian, but also as a scientist responsible for overseeing the Human Genome Project, one of my concerns has been the limits on applications of our understanding of the genome. Should there be limits? I think there should. I think the public has expressed their concern about ways this information might be misused.

Though social eugenics was discredited long ago, we still often think of the genome in quasi-eugenic terms. When we read about the latest discovery of a link between a gene and a disease, we imagine that we've learned the cause of the disease, and we may even think we'll get a cure by fixing the gene.

While our amplified knowledge of genetics - and the increasing precision of the field - does make it tempting to take on celebrity cases, retro-genetics can't always provide clear answers.

Individual wishes are driving the possible emergence of eugenics, not the state, because people want children for whom they can be ambitious.

Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring

Many health organizations discourage patients from learning their ApoE genotype. They warn that people may not be able to cope with bad news or will misinterpret the results.

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about genetic information and what you can and cannot learn.