Slashdot Mirror


Your Genome Scanned While You Wait

dotc writes "A Wired reporter has his DNA scanned for disease predispositions. While we all knew this was coming soon, it's still a little strange to read the first-person account."

9 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. The next news article by Drunken+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And of course, the next news article will be that HMO's have begun rejecting medical procedures based on the predisposition for certain diseases of certain genomes.

    --
    Have you been stalked by Seth today?
  2. Wow... by KenCrandall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did anyone other than me just get *TOTALLY* creeped-out by that article? Not the Gattica references, although the social implications are staggering (i.e. the Philip-Morris quote), but more of the feeling that knowing all the things about my body that *could* go wrong, and trying to treat them in advance is just something that we don't understand the ramifications of entirely?

  3. Genetic predispositioning... by UnidentifiedCoward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is *NOT* the same as actually being diseased/sick. Just because you carry a ressive trait for diabetes or heart disease does not mean that you will suffer from either. I already know I am "predisposed to heartdisease and diabetes", my grandfather had it. I do not need a DNA scan to tell me.

    You tell some people they are predispositioned for heart disease and they are going to think it is a death warrant. Even though it is only a chance, people will throw money at it in attempt to do something about it. More importantly this will spawn a whole new branch of medicine where you sell drugs/therapy to healthy people. We are already starting to see that practice today, look at the logic behind pepcid/ac, the heartburn medication you take over the counter *before* you have heartburn.

    Just my two cents.

  4. Re:Gattica by f97tosc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, actually it is quite some ways, they have to go from checking to manipulation.

    Gattica was an intresting movie, but there were a lot of things that did not make sense. For one thing, the genetic tests were omnipresent - they alone determined what job you would get and whom you would date. They even had to take genetic tests to get into work every day, and the company would search through its facilities to make sure that nobody with inferior genes was present.

    On the other hand, the main character did not have 'improved' genes, and so he had to falsify his identity to get a job. However, he appeared to be just as competent as all the other people where he worked, perhaps more so. Therin lies the contradiction - why would corporations go through great lengths to exclude people with inferior genes, if those are not real indicators of performance?

    A different scenario is that genetic manipulation really does make people smarter and more competent. But then this could probably be identified through normal tests and interviews.

    I don't know which scenario is scarier.

    Tor

  5. Hmm by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder how long before we hear: Only those with something to hide would refuse to be screened. Using encryption (for example) just pisses off government, but there's nobody with deep pockets brib^H^H^H^H lobbying them to ban it. But insuring sickly people costs insurers big money. How much would it cost them to buy laws to make screening mandatory, or at least to allow them (all of them) to insist on it if you want a policy? At the least, I expect to see policy rises for those who refuse a screening, on the basis that only those with something to hide...

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Hmm by msheppard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Flip side: What if I get screened, show up super-clean, and want to pay less for health insurance? Shouldn't I be allowed to contract with an insurance company that only insures those that are screened?

      What are insurance companies allowed to discriminate on:
      Age? Yes.
      Sex? Yes.
      Smoker? Yes.
      Race? No.
      Relegion? No.
      Occupation? Yes.
      Licensed Private Pilot? Yes.
      Credit Raiting? Yes.
      Bungee Jumper? Yes.
      Genetic Predisposition? Maybe!

      In the end it's all numbers. If the numbers show people who wear blue shirts are more likely to get sick than those wearing red shirts... the insurance company should charge more to those in blue shirts. If you don't like this, go find another insurance company. It's legit to setup an insurance company that charges everyone excatly the same. If you're a 21 yr old smoker who flies ultralights, this might be the best bet for you. But if you're in perfect health and are extra careful with your self and have no predisposition, who are we to refuse this person the oppertunity to pay less. It's all gambling and knowing the odds changes the deal.

      M@

      --
      Krispy Cream is people
    2. Re:Hmm by JoeBuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OK, let's say that the insurance companies can get prediction based on both genetics and lifestyle to the point where the money you pay them almost always exceeds the money they pay out for your health care, barring accidents, and even for accidents their lifestyle data gives them good insight into your probability of being hurt.

      This would mean that, for the majority, insurance would become vastly more expensive, to the point where it would become unaffordable. The government would have to pick it up, and effectively tax the healthy to help pay. The alternative is just to leave more and more people with no insurance at all, which will quickly drop the US life expectancy down to third world levels. So you just wind up killing the concept of private insurance altogether. This might be a good thing.

      Also notice that in countries with a single-payer system, good genetic screening is much less of a problem. Since the government system is going to pay to treat everyone anyway, knowing in advance who's susceptible to what diseases might actually reduce costs, by focusing the right treatment on the right people. So it might well be that it is this "Gattaca" stuff that finally kills the broken US health insurance system.

  6. Re:Gattica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Therin lies the contradiction - why would corporations go through great lengths to exclude people with inferior genes, if those are not real indicators of performance?"

    For much the same reason why corporations go to great lengths to exclude people without a 'good' education. They're social thought of as being superior people, even if they aren't. That was the gist of the movie.

  7. Re:This is very premature technology by zeoslap · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First off he's not my pope. Secondly it's far from useless, understanding who we are has been a driving force for positive change through the ages, lets not kid ourselves into thinking that knowledge is a bad thing...