DNA of every baby born in California is stored. Who has access to it?

[Exotica]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-biobank-dna-babies-who-has-access/

SAN FRANCISCO -- You probably know where your Social Security card, birth certificate and other sensitive information is being stored, but what about your genetic material? If you or your child was born in California after 1983, your DNA is likely being stored by the government, may be available to law enforcement and may even be in the hands of outside researchers, CBS San Francisco's Julie Watts reports.

Like many states, California collects bio-samples from every child born in the state. The material is then stored indefinitely in a state-run biobank, where it may be purchased for outside research. State law requires that parents are informed of their right to request the child's sample be destroyed, but the state does not confirm parents actually get that information before storing or selling their child's DNA.

KPIX has learned that most parents are not getting the required notification. We've also discovered the DNA may be used for more than just research.

In light of the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook scandal and the use of unidentified DNA to catch the Golden State Killer suspect, there are new concerns about law enforcement access, and what private researchers could do with access to the DNA from every child born in the state.

snip



I am in the database (CA-born, 1994). Not so happy about this. I will enquire further.

[Igel]

1. I miss the subjunctive.

It makes this kind of incoherent sentence avoidable: " State law requires that parents are informed of their right to request the child's sample be destroyed, but the state does not confirm parents actually get that information before storing or selling their child's DNA."

If they are informed, it means that they got the information. If it's not confirmed that they got the information, then you can't say they were informed.

But "State law requires that parents be informed of their right to request the child's sample be destroyed, but the state does not confirm parents actuaqlly get that information before storing or selling their child's DNA."

It's not completely gone--notice the second "be" (but that might be interpreted as an infinitive). I find too often that when I use the subjective those under 30 assume I'm AAVE-influenced.

Then again, my grammatical quibble over what the reporter wrote pales when compared to the actual webpage for the bio-bank. It was written by a high-school junior who was a non-native speaker of English, I suspect. High functioning, to be sure, but a grammar check, even by a cell phone, might have helped.

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CFH/DGDS/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CBP%20Documents/Information%20For%20Parents.pdf

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

2. Thank you!

I likewise miss the subjunctive. It really makes a huge difference in the meaning of a sentence.

I was actually taught English grammar in a reasonably systematic way from about fourth through tenth grades. Plus, I took a foreign language (French) which actually helped clarify aspects of English grammar.