We're dealing with people and we're providing them a service. We have to make sure that it really is a service to people and not something that we're inflicting on them, imposing on them, particularly in the area of genetics, that they don't want or that may harm them. Well, we've talked already of the necessity that private insurers or employers have for genetic information and so far as I'm concerned we need a new type of health insurance to deal with that. They could do it because, for instance, the people who were getting disease could now be identified were getting genetic disease before there were tests available, but I think it will be difficult to turn the clock back. I think insurance companies will lobby very hard for tests that are important, that is, that identify large numbers of people and that really do influence what an insurance company can charge and what an insurance company's profit is.
Genetic disease is fairly complex.
We're talking here about diseases for which there are genetic predispositions. If an insurance company should use that test it means that it's going to deny insurance to five people out of six who are never going to develop the disease. The insurance company is losing money there and it will have to weigh very carefully whether the cost of providing insurance to that sixth person is going to be greater than denying it to the other five. You have to remember that in addition to testing, insurance companies right now and for many years have used family history, genetic history, to make these decisions and they have also very clearly excluded people who have already had the clinical manifestations of genetic diseases, things like sickle cell or Huntington's disease. But, by virtue of where we stand with the technology now, we have the opportunity to develop tests well in advance of having a therapy treatment for those diseases.