During the past decade, much has been written about the potential ramifications, both good and bad, of the “genetic revolution” as a broad social phenomenon. The tremendous advances that have occurred in the realm of genetics will undoubtedly have an impact on a broad spectrum of society. The products and language of genetics are everywhere. It has been suggested that this omnipresence might, however, cause us to overemphasize inappropriately the role of genetics and to de-emphasize the social, economic and other environmental factors that are relevant to human development1.

It has also been suggested that this “geneticization” phenomenon might have an impact on the legal and social definition of family2. Throughout this century, most jurisdictions have embraced an increasingly inclusive notion of family, one that stresses the importance of social and emotional bonds over that of biological relatedness. Might the ad hoc application of genetics in the realm of family law cause the concept of “biological family” to become pre-eminent again, thus narrowing the conception of family to those with whom we share our biological heritage? Given the socially complex nature of the concept of family, such an emphasis on biology could hardly be considered a constructive trend, but is there any evidence for this shift in focus?

In Canada, a recent survey of family-law cases found that the courts are increasingly turning to the language of genetics as a justification for ordering paternity tests3. Specifically, the judiciary is compelling individuals to be tested because of the perceived health benefits, among other things, of knowing one's “genetic” parents. In these cases, the courts never referred to a specific medical condition or even to a specific application of the genetic information. Rather, the courts seem to be merely guessing that significant medical or genetic information might become available.

In addition, the courts are also influenced by the idea that there might be negative emotional consequences that would result from not knowing one's biological parents and that individuals have a right to know their genetic heritage. We clearly need to be sensitive to the understandable desire of individuals to know their biological relations. However, we also need to be aware of the potential cultural influence that the application of genetics in such settings can have, particularly when it has the potential to alter legal obligations and rights. As we move deeper into the “genetic era”, law-makers need to become increasingly careful about how they interpret and use genetic information. Indeed, as suggested by Alta Charo: “While the law may find biology one useful factor in its classification of persons and their rights, it cannot afford to ignore the purpose for which those rights and rules are created.”4.