The most surprising bit of information I learned from this interview was that scientists would never ask patients who had their genes studied if they'd want to know their polygenic scores. Not only do these scientists take "refuge" (as De Vivo states) under the fact that they are just researchers, their abstinence from letting patients know raises some extremely interesting ethical questions that I've also studied in other neuroethics questions. For example, in GWAS testing there is polygenic score that predicts for how risky a person may be. Thus, should we base credit scores, which have historically disadvantaged communites without proper financial education throughout generations, off polygenic risk scores rather than our current faulty system? Of course, not everyone with a high polygenic risk score would go on to commit crime or have a low credit score, but the probability of it is higher than if you had just taken a random person out of the population.
I would have pressed De Vivo and Kraft on their personal views on whether this information (polygenic risk scores, certain heightened traits) should be distributed or not. Their work is critical to these genes becoming a weapon for legitimate policymaking that can have massive implications on the real world so I believe they should at least address why they believe doing their work is overall worth researching. Perhaps the absence of knowledge in gene studies is consequentially better for our society.