Fire-Eye Vs. your DNA

An eye for an eye, or, as I might say in this case: Fire-Eye for your genetic makeup.

Let's rewind to the year 2020, three years ago, when an innovative Chinese creation known as the Fire-Eye made its way to Serbia via an airplane. The Fire-Eye, a highly sophisticated portable laboratory, has the capability to detect coronavirus infections by analyzing minute genetic fragments that the virus leaves behind. Notably, this technology not only excels in deciphering the genetic code of viruses but also has the capacity to decode the genetic instructions embedded within the cells of every individual on our planet, as claimed by its Chinese inventors.

Fast forward to late 2021, as the global pandemic continued to pose a significant threat, Serbian authorities announced their collaboration with a Chinese company. Their joint venture aimed to transform the Fire-Eye lab into a permanent facility, with ambitious plans to collect and curate the complete genomes, or genetic blueprints, of the Serbian populace.

As fascinating and captivating as this technological advancement may be, particularly for someone like me with a scientific background, it's important to acknowledge that it comes with a darker side. U.S. officials have pointed out that Beijing selected BGI to construct and manage the China National GeneBank, an expansive government-owned repository that has been steadily accumulating genetic data from millions of individuals worldwide. The Pentagon officially designated BGI as one of several "Chinese military companies" operating within the United States last year. Furthermore, a 2021 U.S. intelligence assessment established a connection between the company and a global initiative directed by Beijing, aiming to acquire even more human DNA, including from individuals in the United States. In recent years, apprehensions regarding the potential misuse of DNA data by China have sparked a significant response in North America and Europe. BGI, a company with a broad product range, including the widely used neonatal genetic screening kit known as NIFTY, which is distributed in more than 50 countries, has found itself under scrutiny due to concerns that China might exploit the private health information of countless pregnant women.

Last year, Norway's national Consumer Council issued a warning to women using these tests, citing the perceived risk that private information could be accessed by the Chinese government. Health authorities in Germany and Slovenia also initiated investigations into potential data misuse stemming from the neonatal tests offered by China.

It's worth noting that BGI has maintained that no personal data from NIFTY tests was stored or transferred to China by the company. However, these concerns underline the growing global attention to the complex issues surrounding the collection and management of genetic data in our increasingly interconnected world.

Civil liberties organizations have extensively documented systematic efforts by the Chinese government to forcibly collect biometric data from residents in regions with substantial Tibetan and Uyghur populations—two minority groups that have been subject to severe state repression. This troubling practice appears to have commenced as early as 2017, where authorities in the western Xinjiang province, with a population of approximately 12 million, primarily consisting of Muslim Uyghurs, began demanding blood samples, iris scans, and fingerprints from all adult residents. These actions have been reported by Human Rights Watch.

Similarly, in 2020, a parallel campaign was initiated in the Tibet autonomous region. These actions have raised significant concerns among human rights advocates, as they represent a breach of civil liberties and privacy rights, with potentially dire consequences for the affected communities....

In a world where biometric data is ubiquitously collected, who should bear the responsibility for overseeing the ethical use of this data and handling legal cases related to breaches of privacy, misuse, or potential criminal activities involving biometric information? Can we truly balance the scales of security and privacy, or are we teetering on the edge of a new era where every trace of ourselves leaves a digital footprint? In the age of biometrics, are we forging a path to progress or surrendering to surveillance?

R.H.