Slashdot Mirror
$999 For a Complete DNA Scan, Worth it?
DoroSurfer writes "ZDNet is reporting that 23andme.com will open its doors on Monday, allowing you to send them a cheek swab and have your DNA analyzed for $999 (plus shipping, of course... ;)). So what's a thousand bucks buy you? They can tell you your ancient ancestry, They can tell you what diseases you're predisposed to, They give you a "Gene Explorer" that allows you to do a search in your genome to find out if you have a certain gene (e.g., you just heard on the news that Gene XYZ has been linked to Alzheimer's Disease)."
Hopefully this wont become mandatory for job applications, like credit reports are in some cases...
No sig for the moment.
For rich hypocondriacs. More seriously, I wonder what the implications are for the insurance, medical and even dating industries.
A nice call from your insurance company informing you that they are dropping your coverage due to a genetic predisposition for X disease.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
I have a grandfather with Alzheimer's disease, a disease which if treated early can be very effectively treated extending your life and more importantly to me improving the *quality* of life. This disease begins with no symptoms and progresses slowly going possibly untreated for years. I for one would like the head start.
TODO create witty sig.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Having been previously misdiagnosed with Leukemia and acting on that diagnoses for almost a year, I can tell you that being told that I'm predisposed to something would make every day difficult and worrisome. Shoudl I eat that? Why do I have a headache? My feet are hot, is that a sign?
I would rather have it surprise me and then live every day for what it's worth. Else you might think you sick and run up a bunch of bills you can't pay when you find out you're fine.
I'll be all for it once the government wants to pay for it. The telco companies violated numerous laws to "aide" the government in "hunting for terrorists". Government homeland security agent used database information to harass and threaten his ex girlfriend. Google and Yahoo! work with just about any government to do whatever they want against their people, in the interest of better corporate relations with their governments.
So why exactly should I not expect my DNA information to be archived, cataloged and given to the government at-whim? And since we KNOW that is going to happen, why in the fuck should I spend a thousand bucks for that? As long as they're going to violate me, they might as well at least PAY for it.
Exactly, and we don't have any particular reason to believe at this point, that those 550k include all of the ones that would be interesting anyways. A complete sequence would be far more useful even before we know what everything does, because later on one could reinterpret the sequence without having to do it a second time.
One could much more easily go in later and interpret the sequence, than have to do it a second time to fill in the missing gaps.
Personally, I'm going to pass at least until I can have my entire DNA sequenced. I may even then wait depending upon the level of concern I have for what is done with the information.
Well, if somebody finds my Netflix data, they may find out my most secret movie preferences. If insurance companies or employers link me to my DNA and discover a genetic pre-disposition to brain cancer or a debilitating disease, I'll never get health insurance again, and the misfortune will probably extend to any offspring as well. And would anybody hire you (and again, your children) if you have a genetic pre-disposition to MS or some other debilitating condition? Prospective employers are already googling for damaging Facebook information; just wait until genes enter the mix!
Until good privacy protections and anti-discriminatory legislation are in place, we're talking about a whole different level of risk. -- Paul
OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
Aren't there laws about illegal wire tapping?
Never really understood why people consider knowing they're going to die 15 years from now of something specific more terrible than finding out you have six months to live after a year or two of medical prodding and poking.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to know. The sooner the better.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Ahhh... you seem to be new here. There is a new language that is growing like a cancer. It's called iEnglish. In general it has only a few additional syntactical rules over standard English and a blatant disregard for classic English grammar. Accompanying that are also rules of engagement for internet forums:
1. If you are below a certain level of intelligence and you think it looks cool, do it. Example: Can u read this?
2. The rules of standard English are kind of stodgy and don't really hold up well in polls. Just use whatever you think works and most people will know what you mean even if you don't write it correctly. Also make sure to embrace Appalachionics since it has a warm and homey feel that makes you seem like someone people would want to have a beer with: My warshing machine needs fixed. Or... The nukyelar family is important above else all!
3. Make sure to avoid using more than one or two sentences per paragraph and no more than four paragraphs when writing stuff unless you want someone to think you're boring. Example:
a. Good writing:
"That guy's a troll. He sucks donkey dicks
It's a good thing we're on Digg. None of those crappy Slashdotters.
Go back to Slashdot you asshat."
b. Bad writing:
"Please don't feed the trolls. If you pay more attention to them, they'll keep coming back and lower the tone. The other fallout, is that we have more noise vs. signal if you insist on engaging the trolls. This has been a truism since the beginning of Usenet. I should know, I was there..." (Goes on for ten paragraphs with endless words that are boring, like "truism". WTF is a truism and why should we know?)
4. Make sure to nip any kind of conversation in the bud that isn't beer drinker friendly. The best way to do that is to instantly refer to the poster as a troll if they say something you don't like. The second best way is to invoke Godwin's law even if it doesn't really fit. The main is to keep people from talking about stuff that sucks. Remember, if it won't play on Spike TV, The SciFi Channel, or G4, then it shouldn't be on line either.
5. Always ALWAYS A-L-W-A-Y-S use pictures of videos instead of writing. It's so much cleaner and easier to understand than all that messy and archaic mucking about with text. All you need is a photo or video the presents what you want it to say, then a subject like "Amazing thing!!!!" and you're all set. You'll be communicating in the 21st century in ways that would have had Gutenberg himself breaking out into a cold sweat over.
Welcome to the intarweb tubes. Don't forget to tip heavily!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
For that reasons the medical profession train folk for years to deliver this information - to explain what it really means, for you and for your family. To discuss your options. The data should be available,should be affordable, and should be delivered by a professional, not by an email.
Screw that. Our society has viewed doctors as a combination of voodoo and god for too long. From what I've seen, the average doctor's 'bedside manner' is pathetic enough that an email can't be that much worse.
As someone who's had to diagnose my own medical problems after 8 doctors failed for a decade, I'll take the information and use it myself, thanks.
Unfortunately, there's one little hitch. Changing policy requires that many other people agree with you. Perhaps you've had your head in the sand the last few years, but it's a huge effort just to find a lot of people who don't agree that it's a sweet deal to trade some of their liberties and freedoms for perceived security.
I think what needs to be done on that front is an improvement in rhetoric. For Bush-ites who support such things in the war on terror, I usually gently point out that another president could abuse such laws even if Bush did not. I usually follow that up by asking them how they'd feel if Hillary had the right as president to check out their library records or conduct a warrantless search because they were deemed a "terroristic threat" for being part of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy".
That usually makes them think a bit. Then I start to talk about Ron Paul.