DNA test may speed chemical damage cases
Monday 17 September 2007
Latest in Science
On Facebook
From the blogs
More than half of Afghanistan’s families live in extreme poverty
Leila is watching her baby intently, as his mouth moves trying to swallow the small blob of yellow p...
Time for a new approach to alcohol
Ambulances were called and three drunk teenagers were brought to my care. One was so drunk we had to...
Bahrain: One year on
I am used to endless lies and criticism from the BNP and its favourite blogster, as well as Islamist...
Paul Volcker stands tall against the banking lobby
Why is Europe, which likes to present itself as an opponent of speculative "Anglo-Saxon" finance, li...
A new DNA test could help to prove if people have had their health damaged by exposure to toxic chemicals.
The test involves taking DNA samples from a healthy person and then exposing it to the chemical in question to see which genes are affected. This is then used as a blueprint against which a claimant DNA can be compared.
If this test had been available when Erin Brockovich famously fought her battle in life, and on the screen, to prove that the people she represented had been exposed to hexavalent chromium her case may have been significantly speeded up or even seen a different outcome. Brockovich's campaign won $333m (£164m) in compensation for the people she represented.
Her legal fight against Pacific Gas & Electric Co inspired a Hollywood film named after her, in which she was played by Julia Roberts (far right).
The new technique is expected to be used in civil cases to confirm or deny exposure to and illnesses caused by harmful substances. It could also dramatically reduce the time it takes to settle cases where miners, industrial workers and others seek compensation for health problems caused by exposure to asbestos, coal dust or other environmental toxins.
More than 3,000 people a year die from asbestos-related diseases in the UK and the numbers are predicted to rise to 10,000 a year by 2020. Many cases involving exposure to chemicals take so long to settle that the claimants die before they get compensation.
Exposure in the workplace has been recognised as a danger since 1955. The health risks have also been extended to the relatives of workers who came into contact with asbestos fibres.
The scientist who helped to develop the test, Bruce Gillis, at the Illinois College of Medicine, said it would allow some people to win cases they might have lost. But he added that others would find themselves with no case because their diseases were not caused by the chemicals to which they were exposed.
- 1 No secularism please, we're British
- 2 Apple admits it has a human rights problem
- 3 'Drunk tanks' and minimum prices to help Britain sober up
- 4 Working as a jail torturer ruined my life
- 5 Lightning kills an entire football team
- 6 Reinstate Knox's murder charge, Italian court told
- 7 Caught in his own blast: an Iranian targeting Israel
- 1 Spotify: 1 million plays, £108 return
- 2 How Koscielny became prince of the Emirates
- 3 Apple admits it has a human rights problem
- 4 Mark Steel: If religion is 'marginal', I'm the Pope
- 5 No secularism please, we're British
- 6 Lightning kills an entire football team
- 7 Matthew Norman: There's always the Human Rights Act, Trevor
- 8 Special report: The hungry generation
- 9 I was born to be a killer. Every night I see the Devil in my dreams
- 10 Six Grammys, five years off: Adele puts love before career
Free trial of new Independent iPad app
Get your daily dose of the best of British journalism, sponsored by American Airlines
Win a three-week coastal jaunt
Spend three weeks exploring every nook and cranny of gorgeous Atlantic Canada.
Amazing restaurant offers
Three glasses of free champagne and a special menu at 46 top London restaurants.
Latest Independent competitions
Win anything from gadgets to five-star holidays on our competitions and offers page.
Commercial thought leaders
Watch the best in the business world give their insights into the world of business.
Career Services
Day In a Page
No secularism please, we're British




Comments