Slashdot Mirror
Genetic Information on Major Diseases Uncovered
gollum123 writes "A major advance in the genetic understanding behind several of the world's most common diseases is being reported by the BBC. A study tested some 17,000 people to find genetic markers for the various diseases. 'They found new genetic variants for depression, Crohn's disease, coronary heart disease, hypertension, rheumatoid arthritis and type 1 and 2 diabetes. The Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (WTCCC) involved 50 leading research groups analyzing the DNA from 2,000 patients for each of the seven conditions and 3,000 healthy volunteers. One of the most exciting finds was a previously unknown gene common to type 1 diabetes and Crohn's disease, a type of inflammatory bowel disorder, suggesting that they share similar biological pathways.' There is also disease by disease data at the BBC."
1 ggaggaggtg gaggaggagg gctgcttgag gaagtataag aatgaagttg tgaagctgag
61 attcccctcc attgggaccg gagaaaccag gggagccccc cgggcagccg cgcgcccctt
121 cccacggggc cctttactgc gccgcgcgcc cggcccccac ccctcgcagc accccgcgcc
181 ccgcgccctc ccagccgggt ccagAcggag ccatggggcc ggagccgcag tgagcaccat
241 ggagctggcg gccttgtgcc gctgggggct cctcctcgcc ctcttgcccc ccggagccgc
301 gagcacccaa gtgtgcaccg gcacagacat gaagctgcgg ctccctgcca gtcccgagac
Information, knowledge good! what we do with it, usually not so good.
Can we expect (hope for) laws preventing this information being retrieved or considered when calculating insurance premiums or other times when this may lead to discrimination?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
This is welcomed news for expecting parents. They can now potentially extract DNA from embryos to determine what diseases they are likely to have. With this technology, they could discard the bad ones and keep the good ones, thus producing healthy children. This may even help thrust forward our next step of evolution.
Imagine a world full of healthy people. The cost of healthcare would reduce greatly, thus allowing us to spend more on education and furthering the advancement of the human race.
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
Who will have access to this information?
Some people fear that this information will be used to discriminate against disease-prone individuals in vivo...but it's far more likely that the first discrimination will happen long after birth.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Welcome to the brave new world, where everyone has a pre-existing condition.
The good news is, you'll have knowledge that could extend your life or even save it, if you could get treatment.
The bad news is, in countries with profit-based free-market medical insurance, you won't be to afford that get that treatment, because insurance companies will jack up their premiums when they find out about you.
Everyone has seen this coming for decades. Now it's here. I don't think the United States is ready for it.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
If I have speeding tickets, and my auto insurance carrier finds out about it, is that discrimination?
Is it to our long-term interests to force insurers to operate in ignorance?
Take off your blinders for once.
If you disagree with the arguments posed, by all means dispute them. But don't just dismiss them out of hand, with a snarky "tinfoil hat" comment.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Speaking as a statistical genetics insider, I can tell you that the replication of results in this field is very poor. A team of scientists somewhere will announce they found a gene for XYZ, which is reported in scientific journals and mainstream media -- however, the findings fail to be replicated by other scientists, and the negative results are usually not published. Over the years, hundreds of scientists have claimed to find genes responsible for diabetes, hypertension, autism, etc.
Since there are tens of thousands of genes in the genome, a study with 17,000 subjects makes for less than one subject per gene. (Exactly how many "genes" are in the genome anyway? What exactly defines a "gene"? That is another vast topic.)
Statistically speaking, there should be at least ten subjects per covariate (gene) tested. There is a great deal of hoo-haa over microarrays, but the more you learn about microarrays, the more you will learn just how unreliable they are. The same "disease" can have vastly different pathophysiologies and genetic origins across population groups. Epigenetics, penetrance, expressivity, intron effects -- all multiply the complexity exponentially.
In short, genetics is to biology what nuclear fusion is to physics -- a promising technology that will remain a "few years away" for decades to come.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Now this is something I have thought about long and hard (though no hard research to back it up) about. WHat happens when we do get the power to *poof* the bad genes out of existance from an unborn infant? Well, obviously they won't develop "problem A", but what about other factors? For instance, I know that black people in regions of Africa are born with sickle-cell anemia, but this also helps prevent a certain disease commonly transported by insects in the region. How do we know what (if any) other things might depend on that particular gene?
And on that note, someone mentioned that this may well lead us to our next step in evolution -- that may well be true, but shouldn't evolution happen in response to natural factors by nature's invisible hand? Not some doc in a lab? I mean, so many people on Slashdot are keen on letting the "ivisible hand of capitalism" work the market, why shouldn't we let nature decide what is best for us?
I believe this sort of thing was covered with the Asgaard in Stargate SG-1, they died out because they genetically modified their bodies past a certain point where they could no longer reproduce, only extend their own lives. Now, I am not saying there is any scientific basis for something liek that happening, but aren't parables supposed to make you at least think before acting?
Sorry, bogus thinking is implemented as an application-level protocol.
Much as some wish to blame their peccadilloes on the hardware, Paris Hilton had to work at being vacuous.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
As a type 1 diabetic, I've always said that diabetes is a pain in the ass. Now, since this research shows that it shares a common gene with Crohn's disease, I guess that my statement is even more true than ever.
Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
Although Margaret Sanger was indeed a eugenicist she was not a Nazi and in fact considered the Nazis to be "sad and horrible". Actually the biggest supporters of Mussolini in the United States were the businessmen, and we all know about Henry Ford.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
I'm reading all the morals police comments here, and I'm quite surprised.
Will someone PLEASE explain to me how the ability to diagnose diseases better and earlier is a BAD thing?
There are numerous eggs and numerous sperm to make numerous children by any couple.
When one of each gets a chance at life, a lot of others don't. One lives, others die. If we leverage genetics and choose zygote X where naturally Y would have gotten, it's a zero-sum morals game. A different one lives. As they're not yet anywhere near development, putting morals on this is akin to calling masturbation genocide. LOTS of potential human beings never get to live. It's the natural order of things. Forcing morals onto this and blaming people for it is nothing short of lunacy.
The other side of the coin is, of course, that a LOT of life-ruining conditions (not only for the affected individual, but quite often for his entire family) are simply side-stepped.
Discarding 41st-week pregnancies due to a disliked color of hair is easily avoidable using legal regulation where otherwise sane laws don't exist (say, laws allowing the mother the first part of her pregnancy to decide whether she is ready to commit and allowing her to abort, yet disallowing non-medically-motivated abortion once a certain reasonable point in the pregnancy is crossed, much like you can't just kill your 3-year-old because you don't want to commit to growing him).
Yet how do these mild, pathetic and trivial-to-overcome "dangers" reason to bash the enabling technology that would save so much grief?
-
Insurance underwriting can break even and still be rational. Much of the money made by insurance companies is made by investing premium dollars into marketable securities (corporate and gov't bonds, stocks, etc.), from which the company derives investment income. In the break even situation, this is equivalent to borrowing money at a zero % interest rate, investing the proceeds at a higher interest rate, and paying off the loan at the end of its term. If underwriting is profitable, it is like borrowing money at a negative interest rate, amplifying the result.
This is possible because of the time lag between the payment of premiums and the payouts for insured losses. Insurance companies have billions of dollars of insurance in force spread over many different policies, so it is the average loss experience that counts.
In short, an insurance company can price policies that don't make a profit in unadjusted dollar terms and still be profitable as an insurance company (granted, its much easier if you avoid writing loss-making policies).