Avoiding genetic genocide: understanding good intentions and eugenics in the complex dialogue between the medical and disability communities.

The relationship between the medical and disability communities is complex and is influenced by historical, social, and cultural factors. Although clinicians, health-care researchers, and people with disabilities all work from the standpoint of the best interest of disabled individuals, the notion of what actually is "best" is often understood quite differently among these constituencies. Eugenics campaigns, legal restrictions on reproductive and other freedoms, and prenatal testing recommendations predicated on the lesser worth of persons with disabilities have all contributed toward the historic trauma experienced by the disability community, particularly with respect to medical genetics. One premise of personalized medicine is that different individuals require different solutions. Disabled persons' experiences are a reminder that these solutions can be best realized by maintaining awareness and sensitivity in a complex ethical and moral terrain. Geneticists should recognize that their research may have implications for those with disabilities; they should recognize the impact of the historical trauma of the eugenics movement, and seek to involve people with disabilities in discussions about policies that affect them. Dialogue can be messy and uncomfortable, but it is the only way to avoid the mistakes of the past and to ensure a more equitable, and healthful, future.

The need for congressional action to finance arsenic reductions in drinking water.

Many public water systems in the U.S. are unsafe because the communities cannot afford to comply with the current 10 parts per billion (ppb) federal arsenic standard for drinking water. Communities unable to afford improvements remain vulnerable to adverse health effects associated with higher levels of arsenic exposure. Scientific and bipartisan political consensus exists that the arsenic standard should not be less stringent than 10 ppb, and new data suggest additional adverse health effects related to arsenic exposure through drinking water. Congress has failed to reauthorize the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program to provide reliable funding to promote compliance and reduce the risk of adverse health effects. Congress's recent ad hoc appropriations do not allow long-term planning and ongoing monitoring and maintenance. Investing in water infrastructure will lower health care costs and create American jobs. Delaying necessary upgrades will only increase the costs of improvements over time.