Slashdot Mirror


World's Largest Medical Experiment

eldavojohn writes "Recently in the UK, a Biobank project has been rolled out to 'unpick' the genetic basis of diseases such as cancer on half a million volunteers. This is based on the success of a three-month pilot phase conducted on 3,800 participants. From the article: 'Over the next four years, blood and urine samples will be collected from volunteers aged 40 to 69, to help scientists unravel the genetic foundations of common diseases, including cancer, heart disease, diabetes, dementia and joint problems. If you live in the UK, agreeing to this survey may involve a little more than you would expect."

37 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. What they really need to get this rolling...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is a couple of scantilly clad nurses. Then they can collect DNA too.

    1. Re:What they really need to get this rolling...... by 2.7182 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think such a study would be seminal work in this area....

  2. Re:I thought by 2.7182 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is called the HIV virus. AIDS can result from being infected with the HIV virus. And I don't think the military invented it. It's been recently shown to have definitely come from monkeys, probably in the 1930's.

  3. DeCODE by tom8658 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Theres a project like this in Iceland called DeCODE. They've been given a lot of power over the data collected, enough to make some people wary. It's a fair assumption that this project will face similar problems, although the measures governing DeCODE seem to protect the company much more than the individual. It will be interesting to see how Biobank handles this.

  4. The military did invent it. by krell · · Score: 2, Funny

    "AIDS can result from being infected with the HIV virus. And I don't think the military invented it. It's been recently shown to have definitely come from monkeys, probably in the 1930's."

    Both are true: the military invented it and it came from monkeys. One on the same.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:The military did invent it. by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      . . .the military invented it and it came from monkeys. One on the same.

      I think some of the monkeys might tend to get upset at the suggestion that they evolved from the military.

      KFG

  5. Re:But.. by EnsilZah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Smoking i hardly a good way to control population, by the time smokers die they most likely already have children.

  6. Sounds like a good idea... by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If...

    they properly inform people about the program and its uses before having them volunteer.

    they are rigorous in protecting privacy. (No AOL fiasco.)

    they closely monitor different companies are doing with the data - no cross-referencing with their own data to identify people, no reselling of the data, etc.

    they allow patients to "opt-out" even after they have volunteered.

    they provide it for free to interested, responsible paries. (Or at least cheap enough that major pharmaceutical companies aren't the only customers.)

    they follow the ethical standards of the profession, and not the ethical standards of the mighty dollar (or pound).

    --
    Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
  7. Re:But.. by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Funny

    World of Warcraft on the other hand is pure genius!

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  8. What? by imidan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If you live in the UK, agreeing to this survey may involve a little more than you would expect.
    After reading TFA, I am still puzzled about this statement. What does it mean? The article doesn't even imply this vague disclaimer. Would the submitter care to enlighten us on how the survey involves more than we would expect?
    1. Re:What? by dr-suess-fan · · Score: 2, Informative

      If I'm not mistaken, the original comment looked to me like a rather obvious reference to the the eroding freedoms and big-brothering going on in the UK as of late

    2. Re:What? by Dhalka226 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Would the submitter care to enlighten us on how the survey involves more than we would expect?

      NO! Then you would expect it!!!

    3. Re:What? by beavis88 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here's the participant info:

      http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/about/participantinform ation.php

      The only clause that raised a flag in my mind was the long-term access to medical records, even in the event you die or become mentally incompetent. Other than that, the terms seem downright sane for such a potentially Orwellian study.

  9. Only a problem by krell · · Score: 2, Informative

    "they properly inform people about the program and its uses before having them volunteer."

    Only for a problem that, when confronted by someone demanding blood / semen /urine samples, always decide to give first and ask questions later.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:Only a problem by ConsumerOfMany · · Score: 3, Informative
      I don't know how it is in Europe, but for us (NY metro research facility) to even gather blood samples for randomized testing (say to establish a reference range for cholesterol) the amount of paperwork we go through for each donor is quite extensive. There is about a 10 page disclosure that we go through page by page, have them initial each point about what we are going to do with the sample, what there rights are about the storage of the sample, how long we keep it, who will see the data etc. After they sign it, we encourage a witness to be with them for signing we then sign and date in presence of a witness. They receive a copy in person, and mailed to the address they provide. All this for just a random blood sample, run totally unidentified. This all happens before we can take a sample. If they don't go through and sign, we don't take a sample.

      Mind you, many people that respond to the ads for medical research studies aren't the most educated folks, or even care about what we do with the sample as long as they get the 15 bucks, But we try our best to inform them

  10. The actual relevant website URL by wherrera · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's the link: Biobank (UK) http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/

  11. The largest experiment that we know about... by BigZaphod · · Score: 4, Funny

    What about all the fluoride in the water? It's a conspiracy... a secret experiment that's been conducted for a generation. Who knows what effects that has on us? It might be turning us all into communist spies. Perhaps we'll all wake up one day under the influence of a massive KGB mind control beam. Anything could happen! We must protect our precious bodily fluids at all costs!

    1. Re:The largest experiment that we know about... by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh get a grip. we KNOW what flouride ion in the water does to you there are craploads of medical documents rolling all the way back ot the 1900's on it.

      BTW, My city was used as the control for the origional flouride treatments in the early 1900's Only retarted morons are afraid of the Flouride in water. It's health benefits are only rivaled by clorinating water in making people live longer.

      Flouride ions in water consumed by children make a drastic and dramatic change in the reduction of caries and decay in teeth, increasing the health of the general population significantly. Adults get no benefit from the ion and only huge doses like you find in toothpaste actually affect adult teeth.

      BTW, way before you get poisoned by Flouride your theeth will mottle. I.E. turn brown from the excess flouride... ask many well water drinters from the southwest about flouride in the water, they have too much in many places from natural ground water.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:The largest experiment that we know about... by bdonalds · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please watch this movie. We will all be better for it.

      --
      The most important thing to do in your life is to not interfere with somebody else's life. -FZ
  12. Cancer is what happens when... by Lurker2288 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...a species that historically procreates before 30 years of age is kept alive until their 80s by improved hygiene and medicine. Your body was never designed to last as long as it usually does nowadays, and the systems break down. Cancer isn't a "manmade virus;" it's the end result of a lifetime's worth of minor genetic insults.

    1. Re:Cancer is what happens when... by ps_inkling · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Our environment contains more substances today which cause cells to mutate: estrogen-like chemicals, fine soot particles, innumerous medicines, radioactive decay, socially acceptable behaviors like smoking. Additionally is the continued decay of the athmosphere's blocking of UV radiation (and basement-dweller sensitivity to the sun) and the "ozone layer" problems. Overuse of antibiotics has created "superbugs" we can't completely cure (tubercolosis, staph infections).

      If our bodies were not meant to last this long, babies born of old males and young females should have more genetic problems than young males and females. If our sole purpose was to reproduce a few times and die "young" (before 35), then why do our cells have so many proteins dedicated to detecting and repairing chromosome damage? Shouldn't they deactivate after 35 years?

      Why would nature keep old people around? How does nature select for old age genes if you reproduce when young? Some theories are that older people pass their life's knowledge to the next generation, without the next generation having to experience it themselves. Older people act as secondary caregivers, freeing the younger generation to do "useful stuff".

      There's no reason to believe our bodies were made to wear out at 60 or 70. Eat less calories, more fruit and veggies high in anti-oxidant compounds, exercise (physical labor and mental), and there's no reason that our bodies couldn't last... longer. How much longer? One study says maybe 120 years.

    2. Re:Cancer is what happens when... by Lurker2288 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "If our bodies were not meant to last this long, babies born of old males and young females should have more genetic problems than young males and females." Actually, I saw a study the other day (whose details, I admit, escape me now) that showed some evidence that children born to older men do have a higher incidence of neurological developmental disorders. In addition to the problems associated with older women giving birth (Down's syndrome being the best known example). " If our sole purpose was to reproduce a few times and die "young" (before 35), then why do our cells have so many proteins dedicated to detecting and repairing chromosome damage? Shouldn't they deactivate after 35 years?" Only if you evolved a way to stop expressing those proteins past a certain age--and again, once you've procreated, evolution is through with you. Granted, nowadays it's possible to have children later in life, but for most of the natural history of the species, you squeezed out pups as soon as you were able. "There's no reason to believe our bodies were made to wear out at 60 or 70. Eat less calories, more fruit and veggies high in anti-oxidant compounds, exercise (physical labor and mental), and there's no reason that our bodies couldn't last... longer" The body isn't DESIGNED to wear out any more than it's designed to keep working. It's designed to make babies, and anything happening later is irrelevant. And of course, if you limit the amount of carcinogens you ingest and keep yourself fit you'll spare yourself undue wear and tear (both on your genetic material and on the physiological structure), leading to longer life. Admittedly, it's possible that the behavioral/societal benefits of increased longevity could drive the species towards greater life expectancy, and I have no idea what sort of time scale that would operate on, or how beneficial having grandpa around would have to be to make it work. It doesn't really affect my main point: cancer is a natural result of the body's genetic repair/control systems breaking down over time, rather than an unnatural plague as some paint it to be (barring, of course, cases of cancer due to toxic exposures, or radiation).

  13. Fine by FreeUser · · Score: 4, Funny

    We need people to die..

    Fine. You first.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  14. Re:But.. by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 3, Informative

    What are you smoking? Over population hasn't been a problem for years now. The new bogeyman is overconsumption; aka, SUVs, $3 gas, plastic+paper packaging, disposable diapers, etc.

    Don't believe me? Look at the CIA factbook for Japan, US, and China:
    Japan's birthrate is lower than it's deathrate. It's fertility rate is only 1.4.
    China's birthrate is higher than it's deathrate for now, but it has a below 2.1 fertility rate. That means they too will have a smaller population in the future.
    The US also has a below 2.1 fertility rate (at 2.09), so it too will be seeing population decline were it not for immigrants.
    See Overpopulation.com for more about the fertility rate and population growth.

  15. Why bother with volunteers? by RubberBaron · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...blood and urine samples will be collected from volunteers...

    Just go down to any chav-infested town centre on a Friday or Saturday night. Plenty of blood and urine around then...

  16. Non-UK residents... by Goodgerster · · Score: 2, Funny

    Of course, if you live anywhere other than the UK, you'll find it involves far more than you'd expect.

  17. Re:Huh? by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 3, Informative

    The UK government has made no small secret that it thinks having the DNA of every person on file to run through each time they stop your car/arrest you to fish for other crimes would be a jolly swell idea.

  18. Follow through. by posterlogo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Volunteers in medical studies often (nearly ALWAYS) recieve medical advice and consultation, possibly free medication, and follow-through care. It sounds like you do not want to volunteer -- please don't. Some people, however, feel that participating in a worthy endeavor is payment enough. If it leads to improved health care, great. If you are concerned about pharma companies making money, go into politics. These issues do not belong in science.

  19. Re:Dog / bark / tree / wrong by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your post is so full of crap. Wild animals get cancer as well. I can only hope you're kidding, and the mods are just high as usual.

  20. Re:Largest experiment ... by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ah, the "frankenfood" arguement. The idea that genetic manipulation of foodcrops can create foods that will turn us all into gibbering zombies.

    Apparantly, the parent poster doesn't realize that we've been doing this since time immemorial, through a process called "selective breeding". Different DNA in the corn doesn't make a difference once its in your system, all of it will still be broken down for individual sugars and proteins, etc. The DNA won't suddenly become hostile and start mutating you. Its still just corn. Genetically modified? Certainly. Just like any corn you could buy from anywhere, but this modification was done in a lab instead of through several generations of selective breeding. Also, its great with butter and salt!

    --
    There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
  21. Re:But.. by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 2, Funny

    If people stop consuming they will go back to fucking.....

    --
    Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

    http://financialpetition.org/
  22. An interesting project... by StarfishOne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just a pity that they don't follow the subjects for a longer period of time. Although one can certainly learn a lot by tracking people for 4 years, I wonder if it is long enough for certain diseases which are, sadly enough, far too common.

    As a comparison:

    The University Medical Center Groningen has initiated a large scientific study called LifeLines, which, will follow the developments in the health of as many as 165,000 people in the northern Netherlands during a period of at least 30 years. The LifeLines study will extend the knowledge of and insight into the origins of frequently occurring diseases, which will result in earlier and better intervention and prevention. LifeLines aims to assess how and why specific risk factors lead to different diseases in individuals. The UMCG is the first organization in the Netherlands to set up a medical biobank on this scale. The creation of LifeLines has been made possible partly thanks to a Kompass subsidy of 4.5 million from the three Northern Provinces.

    Full Story

    Interesting projects in general though, precisely because of their scope.

  23. Re:Of course, the volunteers won't make a penny by eipgam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I get your point, but since when has profit sharing or payment been a pre-requisite for volunteering?

    What I'd rather see happen is the NHS get subsidised drugs that are developed as a result of this study.

  24. Largest CONTROLLED medical experiment by davidwr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Don't forget the unintentional "experiments" that tested things like:

    Will the thinning of the ozone layer result in more cancer?
    Will increased pollution cause health problems?
    Will increasing the average air temperature over time have health consequences?
    Will advertising cigarettes on television lead to more lung cancer?
    Will not promoting condoms lead to an increase in HIV transmission?

    and many more.

    Yes, I know, technically those aren't "medical experiments" but we still have an opportunity to learn from them.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  25. Re:Largest experiment ... by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What I'm saying is, without an explicit mechanism for either our digestive systems to start reading the rapidly-decaying DNA floating outside its protective cell walls, or for that DNA to suddenly and spontaneously exhibit bacterial or viral infection vectors, there is no place where things can go wrong on a genetic level. The rest of the plant matter that we can't absorb at that stage of digestion is passed on for further break-down, or excreeted at the final stage. I'm sure you've seen those bits of corn that you couldn't digest, and they're no more dangerous now than before.

    There's a great deal of unwarranted fear-mongering going on behind the anti-GM food movement. They're scared of change, and of the pace that change comes at. They yell and scream loudly about it, and stick to their "organic" foods (which is a rather misleading title in itself, as the title of "organic" technically means that it need only contain carbon to be accurate - there's no regulation on this label in most places). Meanwhile, they offer no evidence that anything is wrong, just a lot of FUD. If you wish to say that something is dangerous, that's fine. Give me proof that its dangerous, and I might start listening to you. No "maybe"s or "what if"s. Solid facts, statistically relevant samples, and long term studies. GM foods have been around for roughly 12 years, and in that time over 100 studies have been done and no health risks have been found. I'll source this if you want, although I'm certain you have access to Google too. Until you can show me a reason to be concerned, stop crying wolf. Meanwhile the benefits such as increased yields, decreased maintenance and pesticide reliance, decreased irrigation requirements, and many others are here, real, tested and shown.

    --
    There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
  26. Re:Of course, the volunteers won't make a penny by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Curing diseases isn't profitable. Treating symptoms with very expensive drugs is.
    Depending on who the research group really is - if they are a pharm corporation they are in no way funded to find a "cure" for anything - but if they are truly independent they may be looking to cure something....

    I work with a ton of medical researchers at the university where I work, and many of the research volunteers are doing it just for the sake of science. Yes, it is surprising, but there still are some folks out there motivated by other things than greed. As the earlier poster pointed out, they are compensated for travel time, given free medical treatment and/or drugs, etc. Some even get compensated for their time...

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  27. Re:Of course, the volunteers won't make a penny by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    statistically the rich won't participate at all, no matter what.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect