about only sharing genetic information to sources who intend to contribute to medical discovery with the appropriate ethical standards. genetic discrimination during covid-19 covid-19, or a coronavirus labeled sars-cov-2, is a highly-transmittable, respiratory virus first identified in wuhan, china, in december 2019 and the virus has since spread globally and reached a pandemic status. individuals with co-morbidities, such as pre-existing conditions and disabilities like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, immunocompromised conditions, obesity, etc, are more likely to experience severe covid-19 symptoms and have greater risk of worse outcomes, such as death. genetic conditions are among some of the causes of these co-morbid conditions. while the body of knowledge surrounding covid-19 and genetic susceptibilities to the virus is continually growing with new research, there is a preliminary understanding that genetic conditions or inherited mutations can increase one's likelihood of experiencing severe symptoms. due to this increased potential of contraction and subsequent severe symptoms, individuals with genetic conditions are among those with co-morbidities that have received cautionary advisories from the cdc and preferential designation for the rollout of covid-19 vaccines. during the beginning months of the pandemic, existing legal protections, like gina and the ada, were put to the test. with scarce resources, including ppe, ventilators, and other crucial equipment, doctors and health care systems were put under incredible stress to treat an ever-increasing number of patients and in some places still continue to battle high numbers of cases. due to the overwhelming surge in covid-19 cases, hospital systems needed to enact triage protocols, or a system of guidelines meant to help direct resources and help health care professionals make choices about limited supplies. there were instances across the country early in the pandemic, where hospitals were accused of enacting discriminatory triage protocols which excluded those with genetic conditions, such as in tennessee, where those with spinal muscular atrophy, a autosomal recessive disease, or other disabilities were prevented from receiving ventilators or other scarce resources. in other states for example, like washington and alabama, hospitals were accused of more broad discriminatory allocation policies which prevented larger groups of individuals with genetic conditions under categorizations of chronic conditions or intellectual disabilities from receiving life saving treatments, such as ventilators. many advocacy groups raised complaints about these triage protocols to the department of health and human services office of civil rights, and after the complaints the guidelines have been swiftly removed. these examples of triage protocols which had complaints raised against them are just a few of many across the country. these instances may now call into question the efficacy of current legal protections and their ability to prohibit genetic discrimination, opening up discussions of whether they might need to reformed in order to continue to protect individuals' genetic privacy and autonomy, but also to account for instances like a pandemic, where individuals with genetic conditions might be at greater risk. further, the covid-19 pandemic may have uncovered possible gaps among existent legal protections, like gina, which may leave room for discrimination in longterm care and disability insurance, or the ada, which more so covers ongoing disabilities, rather than susceptibility to conditions. additionally conversations have turned to how to protect dna and genetic privacy during a pandemic like covid-19. according to hollenstein et al., in a preprint of their research on preserving genetic privacy, they address the possible issue of mass-scale detections and numerous samples being collected through covid-19 tests and contact-tracing and what that means in terms of who then has access or owns this genetic information. while the exact solutions or changes to be made remain unknown, some solutions could possibly arise from research into equity-first preemption frameworks, which could help eliminate inequities in access to proper healthcare. canada the genetic non-discrimination act received royal assent and became law in canada on may 4, 2017. it introduced amendments to the canadian human rights act and canada labour code that prohibit genetic discrimination in employment and accommodations within federally regulated industries, and also introduced criminal penalties for entities requiring individuals to undergo genetic testing as a condition for the provision of goods or services, or as a condition for entering or continuing a contract. the act also forbids anyone from refusing to enter into a goods or services agreement with another person on the grounds that that person has refused to disclose the results of an already completed genetic test. violations are punishable by fines of up ca$1 million and/or imprisonment of up to five years. accordingly, one effect of the legislation is to prohibit insurance providers from demanding that a prospective client undergo a genetic test—or to disclose an existing test—as a prerequisite to the provision of insurance coverage. the genetic non-discrimination act was opposed by the insurance industry and, upon its passage, then-attorney general jody wilson-raybould stated she believed the law may be unconstitutional. the provisions of the law, as they applied to provincially regulated industries, were challenged by the government of quebec before the quebec court of appeal, which held them unconstitutional. on july 10, 2020, the supreme court of canada reversed the decision and upheld the law in a 5–4 split ruling. united kingdom the equality act of 2010 prohibits the use of genetic information for employment decisions such as hiring and promotions. while no formal law exists banning the use of genetic information for insurance policy decisions, the government of the united kingdom and the association of british insurers voluntarily entered a moratorium from 2014 to 2019 to refrain from using genetic information with regards to insurance. malawi malawi is the only country in africa that has enacted any laws regarding genetic discrimination. malawi's national health sciences research committee adopted the policy requirements of the science and technology act no.16 of 2003. australia in australia, genetic information is less likely to influence health insurance coverage decisions as health insurance is "community rated", meaning that all individuals pay the same amount regardless of their history or genetic makeup. since 2008, the amount of insurance applications with attached genetic test results has increased by 90%. although the community rating allows for a more even distribution of risk and cost to consumers, life insurance companies are legally allowed to “underwrite” when evaluating the genetic risks of applicants; essentially, those with higher risk could potentially be charged higher premiums. life insurance companies can require individuals to report genetic testing results if they have already been tested, but cannot force individuals to take genetic tests. these companies are able to require individuals to disclose genetic testing results from research and direct-to-consumer tests. argentina genetic discrimination is a rising issue in argentina. health plans discriminate against those who have disabilities or who have genetic conditions. in the past decade, however, national law 26689 was passed providing patients with the right to not experience discrimination as a result of genetic conditions. genetic testing in the workplace some people have genes that make them more susceptible to developing a disease as a result of an occupational exposure. for example, workers with beryllium sensitivity and chronic beryllium disease are more likely to carry the gene hla-dpb1 than workers without these conditions. by offering optional genetic testing to workers and allowing only the workers to see their own results, employers could protect genetically susceptible individuals from certain occupational diseases. a beryllium manufacturing company initiated a pilot program to test prospective workers for the hla-dpb1 gene at a university-based laboratory. the company paid for the testing and counseling but received results that did not identify which workers had the gene. in 1991, the american medical association council on ethical and judicial affairs suggested that the following five conditions must be satisfied in order for genetic screening by an employer to be appropriate: the disease must develop so rapidly that monitoring would be ineffective in preventing it. the genetic test is highly accurate. the genetic variation results in an unusually elevated susceptibility to occupational illness. undue expense is needed to protect susceptible workers by lowering the level of the toxic substance in the workplace. the worker must provide informed consent prior to being tested. several occupational health screening measures similar to genetic testing are already taking place. for example, in 1978, dupont reported testing african american applicants for sickle cell trait and restricted these workers from exposure to nitro and amino compounds. however, research indicates that workers or applicants would not take advantage of genetic testing due to fear of discrimination. a 1995 poll of the general public found that over 85% are concerned about access to use of genetic information by insurers and employers. likewise, in the case of the beryllium manufacturer described above, so few workers participated in the genetic testing that the company decided instead to pursue an "enhanced preventive model of workplace controls." race researchers emphasize that race is not a scientifically valid concept and cannot accurately describe biological variation. attempts to do using genetics may lead down a slippery slope toward scientific racism, the pseudoscientific practice of justifying racism using empirical evidence. though the human genome is extremely complex, humans share 99.9% of their dna and differences among people cannot be attributed to social categories of race. some cases, however, have found statistical evidence of genetic differences between human populations, such as mutations within the duffy blood group. yet research looking at 109 genetic markers across 16 populations by guido barbujani "does not suggest that the racial subdivision of our species reflects any major discontinuity in our genome". as genomic research continues to investigate human genetic variation on a large scale, racial genetic discrimination remains a concern for many. linking genetic conditions and treatments to race