From Venter's statement:
When we look at our not so distant past it is easy to understand how the idea of the anonymity and protection of research subjects came to pass. The supposed science-based eugenics movement, the human experiment atrocities of the Nazis and the Tuskegee syphilis research debacle are just a few examples that prove that we as a society do not have a very good track record on the research front. So naturally when the idea first arose of decoding our human genome, the complete set of genetic material from which all human life springs, it was met largely with fear, including concern of how to adequately protect those involved as DNA donors.

Notions about genetics at the time were based on myth, superstition, misunderstanding, misinformation, misuse, fear, over-interpretation, abuse and overall ignorance propagated by the public, the press and—most surprisingly—even some in the scientific community."

While knowing all the wrongs it has brought, i do agree to Venter's statement that fear alone, cannot be the leading force of why to pursue (or not) a certain direction and narrative of life.

The only thing I have a problem with in the public DNA database, is that medical insurance & life insurance companies will use it to deny one coverage or make the premiums so high because of something found in your DNA that one can't afford coverage or like car insurance--one will have to go into a high risk pool, only unlike car insurance, one can never get out of the high risk pool because one improves one's driving record. I would like to see one, if its only used for medical research, to cure/treat inherited diseases better, etc.