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."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
When will we have to make sure we leave no testable samples of DNA when going in for an interview? :)
More importantly when we go on dates?
...is just a few years away. On the upside, GE should render those "add three inches..." spams pretty much obsolete for my grandchildren.
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
You mean I've been collecting Jude Law's blood and urine samples all these years for nothing?!
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?
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?
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.
"For instance, you might have a CG that makes you susceptible to diabetes, and I might have a CC, which makes it far less likely I will get this disease."
CC is not an allowed base pairing. It could be GC, AT or TA instead, but CC would be recognized as a defect and repaired.
If you can't beat them, embrace and extend them.
All the article on one nice page.
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.
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...
DNA is the book of life. It's also the book of death.
Hard science journalism at it's best. Sheesh.
This, I'm told, is the first time a healthy human has ever been screened for the full gamut of genetic-disease markers.
Yeah, RIGHT. Imagine that lab meeting: Guys, I have a plan, we've never done this before, so lets invite in a journalist and see if we can humiliate ourselves.
Braun, 46, is both jovial and German.
Yes, Homer, Germany is the land of chocolate.
These disease-causing SNPs are fueling a biotech bonanza; the hope is that after finding them, the discoverers can design wonder drugs.
The hope of many of these bottom feeders is that they can identify an SNP and exert some intellectual property over it to horn in on whomever actually can find a treatment. Anyone want me to deliver another manifesto on the evil of this approach?
Alright - let's talk genetic diversity.
As Braun explains it, somewhere in the past, an isolated human community lived in an area where the food was poor in iron. Those who developed a mutation that stores high levels of iron survived, and those who didn't became anemic and died, failing to reproduce.
Good point! This is reason number one NOT to reduce the genetic diversity of the human race. All of these alleles floating around the population - which may become increasingly rare as there is selective pressure against them, and may even cause considerable suffering or death to some of those who carry them - should not be removed from our collective gene pool, at least not without considerable discussion. Why? Because WE MAY NEED THEM. A monoculture (were all organisms have the same genes) is not sustainable in a biological sense.
This is also one of the great tragedies of our times - sub-saharan africa contains only a fraction of the human population, but it contains over a third (depending on how you measure it) of human genetic diversity. The region of the world being devastated by AIDS may contain any number of alleles which our decsendents may need in the population in order to face the challenges of the future, whatever they may be.
"Ja, that's my favorite," says Braun, himself a smoker. "I wonder what Philip Morris would pay for that."
Note that this gene doesn't make it safe to smoke - smoking still causes heart disease and so forth in these people. Still, a treatment to clone this gene into your lungs could make billions, no (clone as in move DNA around)?
These genetic modification treatments may not be such a good idea, either. You all remember in 1999 when a research subject at Penn died from a liver treatment (search for "liver")? The upshot is - anything that delivers genes into a person can, and sooner or later will, go out of control and do things you don't expect. Killing the subject is the most likely, but frankly least frightening, of these possibilities. The real threat - and my colleagues in biotech like to play this down but I am not at all convinced by their arguments - is that vectors for DNA delivery into humans could go wild and become contagious.
Of course, I'm opposed to animal organ transplantation for fear of introducing new human pathogens, so maybe I'm just a naysayer.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
200 miles is considered a fair distance here.
My guess is that most of the readers here would willingly walk that distance if it meant getting laid.
.. The last time I was at my physician he wanted a blood sample, a semen sample, a urine sample and a stool sample.
So I gave him my underwear.
[rimshot]
Trolling is a art,
While screening is an ominous first step, prenatal screening and gene therapy are where this gets really frightening. For starters, as with any cutting edge medical technology, this will be expensive. Therefore, those who would "improve" the dna of their offspring will be the elites. As they branch out from diseases to other areas...intelligence, looks, etc., the line between the rich and the poor will only grow wider. And here in the U.S., minorities represent a greater percentage of the poor than their overall numbers, meaning any growing divide between rich and poor will also widen the racial divide. Unless society comes up with some good answers, the spells big time social problems for the future.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball(TM)
.. back in my granddad's day when you could just discriminate based on skin colour. Now you have to be a damn scientist to hate people.
Yes, I'm joking!
Trolling is a art,
What Celera/Ventner are selling for .5M is having your genome SEQUENCED, not scanned. The former is a base-pair level map of your entire genome. The latter is checking certain windows to see if they contain a known, small, problem causing mutation, (as well as some large checks for rearrangements and such).
It's sort of the difference between reverse compiling the entire suorce code for an app (hard), and checking certain locations for passwords/corruption/etc.
G
Ps: Celera's map didn't really beat HUGO, they're both totally incomplete, with tons of errors known and unknown.
With the risk of getting a flamebait mod, perhaps it is worth pointing out that the technology is not all bad.
So it is creepy to get a genetic test, but also it can be quite useful. If you have predisposition for an illness then you are much better off knowing it in advance so that you can test frequently and adapt your behavior (e.g., diet).
And of course, if you still don't like it, you don't have to.
Now somebody will predict that insurance companies will force everyone to do the test, I'll save you the trouble and reply right away. The scenario is unlikely, because there are quite a few legal limitations on what these companies can and cannot ask for - and the majority of registered voters are very sceptical.
But even if it did happen, would it necessarily be so bad? Widespread testing would make the total, and therefore the average, cost of insurance lower. This is because it is easier and cheaper to treat illnesses at an early stage. Certainly those with certain predispositions would get a higher premium, but would not even that be preferable over paying a standard premium and then getting an illness that could have been averted by frequent tests and say the right diet? One could also think of taxes and subsidies supporting those that got higher premiums. Since the total medical costs would go down, it is at least theoretically possible to come up with a system where everyone is better off.
Tor
my fave quote from the article.
"One gene seems to shield smokers from lung cancer. 'That's my favorite,' says the doctor, a smoker. 'I wonder what Philip Morris would pay for that.'"
Ah yes.. now I can blisfully tell myself that yes I must have this gene and therfore my smoking is A.O.K
Huzzah!
If I were only smart enough to accomplish the things I dream about.. Or maybe too dumb to care.