Scientists To Post Individuals' DNA Sequences To Web

isBandGeek() writes "With shocking disregard to their personal privacy, at least 10 people volunteered to release their entire medical records and DNA sequences in order to get their DNA decoded and analyzed. 'They include Steven Pinker, the prominent Harvard University psychologist and author, Esther Dyson, a trainee astronaut and Misha Angrist, an assistant professor at Duke University. They have each donated a piece of skin to the project at Harvard University and agreed to have the results posted on the internet. The three are among the first 10 volunteers in the Personal Genome Project, a study at Harvard University Medical School aimed at challenging the conventional wisdom that the secrets of our genes are best kept to ourselves. The goal of the project is to speed medical research by dispensing with the elaborate precautions traditionally taken to protect the privacy of human subjects."

Comments

time to clone them

[yincrash]

that'll show 'em!

Re:time to clone them

[Anonymous Coward]

Little chance anyone wants extra clones of those academics around... Of course, just watch what happens if they persuade Jessica Alba or Keira Knightley to post their full DNA - thousands of teenage mad scientists trying to clone their way to a hot date ... ;-)

Re:time to clone them

[Big Nothing]

I'm sure that seeing the DNA of Steven Pinker, Esther Dyson and Misha Angrist is interesting to a select few, but if you REALLY want the crowd to gain interest you should get the DNA of the one-man-freakshow Michael Jackson. Or maybe that really hot chick from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".

Re:time to clone them

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't they the same person?

Re:time to clone them

[interploy]

If they could get DNA from a cartoon character, it would indeed be interesting.

I'd do this in a second

[moderatorrater]

Shocking disregard for personal privacy? Nobody can do more than glean a few random statistical probabilities from DNA as it stands now. It may be that in ten years we'll know more, but if our knowledge of DNA goes at the same pace that it did for the last ten years, it'll be half a century before we're able to tell enough about a person that it could be considered an invasion of privacy.

If this will really help the science move forward more quickly, then the benefits of everyone not knowing my DNA will easily be offset by the new scientific knowledge.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody can do more than glean a few random statistical probabilities from DNA as it stands now.

And yet in the swirling mists of half-truths and the unknown, people act the craziest.

I'm sure that the 8th volunteer (who has the marker for "10% risk of cancer") will be grateful after a decade of being uninsurable when the scientists go "oh wait, that should be 0.01%"

Re:I'd do this in a second

[davmoo]

Even if reams of accurate information could be decoded right now, I don't see how this could be considered an "invasion of privacy" when the individuals signing up for it are willingly giving permission for all this info to be posted about them. And as TFA states (yeah, I know, I wasn't supposed to read it before commenting), the first 10 were specifically chosen to be people who understood the ramifications of having this info posted.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[djmurdoch]

They aren't just posting some parts of their DNA, they're also posting their full medical records. At the moment, that's a bigger loss of privacy.

They are healthy people, so they aren't at a big risk: but it might be that they'll eventually be recognized as carriers of some genetic problem, in which case their relatives may have trouble getting health insurance.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Swift Kick]

It's not just about the medical aspect of it, you know. It's amazing what you can do with someone's information when they're freely giving it to you.

In a legal setting, you'd be surprised at the lengths that law enforcement agencies go through to collect DNA samples from individuals who may not want to cooperate with them. The old "Would you like some coffee, soda, smoke" bit comes to mind when you want to collect DNA from a suspect.

Something like this stunt, while great from a PR perspective, just simply makes it possible for insurance companies to deny them coverage in the future, allows law enforcement agencies to add their genetic profiles to their databases, etc, and they can't argue against it with the 'invasion of privacy' line. They volunteered it themselves.

 

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly; just wait until one of them shows up as having the BRCA gene. They'll never be able to switch insurance again. Leave one job and move to another with different medical - nope.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Xaria]

Worst-case scenario, they can move to a country that actually cares about its citizens and provides decent free health care. And if they're not planning to commit a crime then they probably don't care about being on a DNA database.

Let's get over the paranoia, people ... the amount of data your average kid puts on Facebook is enough to impersonate them.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[mollymoo]

I'm sure that the 8th volunteer (who has the marker for "10% risk of cancer") will be grateful after a decade of being uninsurable when the scientists go "oh wait, that should be 0.01%"

If people are being denied medical care because they release information about their health the problem lies not with the person releasing their information, but with the society in which they live.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Seoulstriker]

Yeah, I would hate to have the BRCA gene, especially considering that all humans have at least one copy of it in their genomes. Me, I would prefer to have the BRCA genes, preferably with no deleterious mutations.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[philspear]

Well, that will give them moral superiority as they declare bankrupcy following a life-saving emergency surgery.

"I may live in a box, but it's cause the system is broken, not my fault."

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Anonymous Coward]

Shocking disregard for personal privacy?

Absolutely! They didn't even copyright their genetic code before releasing it. Now they'll never see a dime in royalties on copies, not to mention the residuals lost from derivative works...

Re:I'd do this in a second

[khallow]

Nobody can do more than glean a few random statistical probabilities from DNA as it stands now.

I was thinking more being able to clone them in 20-40 years or release a disease tailored to their DNA code inside of 50 years. That's assuming the current rate of progress.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[bws111]

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act makes that illegal.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[a whoabot]

I think the idea is that resources are scarce and so if high-risk people are denied coverage more people can be treated because resources can cover more if they're not being spent on people who require expensive treatment. So it's sort of a utilitarian argument. Say there are three people and two indivisble pills for headaches. One guy is incapacitated with such a headache that he needs the two pills to get rid of his headache, and two of the people are incapacitated in the same way as the first guy with such headaches that they need one each to get rid of their headaches. The idea is that that you give the two pills to the guys who only need one pill each, because then you have two healthy people rather than one.

The further idea is that although there are inefficiencies and deficiencies with the market distribution method, the alternatives are worse.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Obfuscant]

Worst-case scenario, they can move to a country that actually cares about its citizens and provides decent free health care.

Where's my mod points when I need to mark a troll?

A country that cares about its citizens doesn't try to take over the health care industry, it allows people to get the amount or level of insurance they want and don't overload the system by making it free for all. Free for all means mediocre or poor for everyone.

Hawaii has just dropped free health care for children because, duh, people who could pay for it stopped paying for it and the free system overloaded. After just SEVEN MONTHS in operation. Funny how people who demand free health care for all can't predict that those who pay for it now will STOP and there will be no "free" for anyone.

It was the most amazing thing to hear Obama saying that he didn't want to eliminate existing insurance, just provide free coverage for those who can't afford it. He has no clue how many people would stop paying for their existing insurance and go with free, so his projections on cost and workability are skewed. It's the same as every other entitlement program ever enacted. FREE draws crowds of people who can afford it but don't want to pay. What's worse is that those who drop paid insurance for the free stuff are likely to be the ones who don't need much medical care to start with and object to paying insurance for something they don't need. That leaves all the sick people paying insurance because they can't change with an existing condition, which can't provide services because it is no longer getting subsidized by people who are paying but not needing services.

And then we can join Canada and have ten month waiting lists for OB services. (Here's the clue: OB's deliver babies. Babies take only nine months. If you have to wait ten months to see an OB, you will have a one month old baby to show him, delivered by yourself.)

Re:I'd do this in a second

[bws111]

Or stay in the US where it is already illegal for employers and insurers to discriminate based on genetic information. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Re:I'd do this in a second

[sexconker]

I bet you can sign up for SMS alerts for any updates about what your DNA means to you. That's certainly worth .002 cents.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Iamthecheese]

illegal in America, you insensitive clod!

Re:I'd do this in a second

[mollymoo]

The scarcity business doesn't apply, every Western economy can afford universal medical care.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[maxume]

Yes, global immigration policies are oh-so-liberal.

Also, I'm pretty sure that 'universal' is a lot closer to the truth than 'free'.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. The set of doctors is infinite. And all the resources doctors consume in order to live. The same for all researchers and all resources used for research. Sure, no scarcity.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[fartmasterB]

But in 50 years people will be able to look back at Steven Pinker's genome and determine exactly how large his penis was, which could be embarrassing.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[rm999]

"Something like this stunt, while great from a PR perspective, just simply makes it possible for insurance companies to deny them coverage in the future..."

Insurance companies have better things to do than to mess around with the premiums of test subjects by trying to guess that a 1 instead of a 0 in the 18238940th bit of a subject's DNA sequence means they statistically have a 50% greater chance of getting a disease that will kill them five years sooner.

Anyway, what you're talking about is illegal in the USA, even if the insurance companies wanted to go through the trouble:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrimination_Act

Re:I'd do this in a second

[ShakaUVM]

>>Shocking disregard for personal privacy?

Yeah, I mean, didn't the same summary say that they volunteered to release it?

My guess is that they'll conclusively find that the astronaut had DNA which ensured she'd be an astronaut. It's amazing how powerful your results are when you have a sample size of 1.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the privacy of their descendants?

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Goaway]

Because insurance companies totally run checks to see if you happen to be one of the ten people on the planet whose DNA is publicly available and then analyze it.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Anonymous Coward]

Worst-case scenario, they can move to a country that actually cares about its citizens and provides decent free health care.

Where's my mod points when I need to mark a troll?

A country that cares about its citizens doesn't try to take over the health care industry, it allows people to get the amount or level of insurance they want and don't overload the system by making it free for all. Free for all means mediocre or poor for everyone.

Hawaii has just dropped free health care for children because, duh, people who could pay for it stopped paying for it and the free system overloaded. After just SEVEN MONTHS in operation. Funny how people who demand free health care for all can't predict that those who pay for it now will STOP and there will be no "free" for anyone.

It was the most amazing thing to hear Obama saying that he didn't want to eliminate existing insurance, just provide free coverage for those who can't afford it. He has no clue how many people would stop paying for their existing insurance and go with free, so his projections on cost and workability are skewed. It's the same as every other entitlement program ever enacted. FREE draws crowds of people who can afford it but don't want to pay. What's worse is that those who drop paid insurance for the free stuff are likely to be the ones who don't need much medical care to start with and object to paying insurance for something they don't need. That leaves all the sick people paying insurance because they can't change with an existing condition, which can't provide services because it is no longer getting subsidized by people who are paying but not needing services.

And then we can join Canada and have ten month waiting lists for OB services. (Here's the clue: OB's deliver babies. Babies take only nine months. If you have to wait ten months to see an OB, you will have a one month old baby to show him, delivered by yourself.)

So that explains all those self-delivered babies up here in Canada. And that I've ever been less than completely satisfied by my free health care.

Wait, those were both lies.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[mysidia]

That's called genetic discrimination, and that practice is addressed by new federal law, the: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008/a>.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[aztektum]

You're right, the system we have now, where people go bankrupt trying to save their lives or the lives of a loved one is *so* much better.

What's funny and sad at the same time is we'll bankrupt the nation to support a war and help out big business... but providing health services would somehow be a big no no.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Anonymous Coward]

Two options:

1. Change your DNA

2. Change the System

Pick one...

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Money for Nothin']

"Free" health care? Where?

Anybody who claims anything is somehow "free" demonstrates economic cluelessness. You really think there is no cost to medicine? Doctors work for free? Drugs require no time or money/property to develop? Hospitals erect themselves out of infinitely-available materials?

I suppose you think Obama will be a great President too -- just like every other economic fool who believes that taxpayer funding makes things "free"...

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats it roll out the same tired old cliches that
the loopy free market is best types subscribe to. Dont let reality get in the way of your "Story"

Civilised countries have public and private health care. Nice job of setting up your straw man about Canada too.

We in OZ get along very nicely with public health care, even cuba manages. Countries without public health care should be classified as underdeveloped and uncivilised.

Do you really beleive insurance accountants should be deciding someones treatment?

If so you should perhaps get your computer fixed by a plumber!

Someone give polly a cracker to shut hime up!

Re:I'd do this in a second

[drinkypoo]

The idea is that that you give the two pills to the guys who only need one pill each, because then you have two healthy people rather than one.

Cubans spend what, $35/year on average on medical care, yet have the same life expectancy and about the same infant mortality rate we do? Yet we can easily spend more than $35 on a single pill, even with prescription coverage...

I think it should be obvious to anyone that the system is the problem. In fact, resources are not scarce. All scarcity in a market based on artificial chemicals is itself artificial. It's like saying there's a shortage of Freon because we can't make it fast enough. No, it's just now illegal to make in the USA - but you can still sell it.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[drinkypoo]

A country that cares about its citizens doesn't try to take over the health care industry, it allows people to get the amount or level of insurance they want and don't overload the system by making it free for all. Free for all means mediocre or poor for everyone.

That's a bunch of crap, and here's why: If you have the money, you can still pay for care in cash if you want to. No one will stop you.

There is no reason why we should pay orders of magnitude more (even with "health insurance") for health care than people in other countries with the same life expectancy... for example, Cuba.

Hawaii has just dropped free health care for children because, duh, people who could pay for it stopped paying for it and the free system overloaded.

If the source of funding for Hawaii's health care system was flawed, it still doesn't mean the idea of national health is flawed. Nice try, though.

Funny how people who demand free health care for all can't predict that those who pay for it now will STOP and there will be no "free" for anyone.

Actually, no one has suggested that it be free for all. Instead, it is suggested that it be paid for by taxes. This system will work fine if there are not tons of bullshit costs built into the system. Allowing big pharma to get away with murder (more or less literally) in the name of profit is not an example of the government serving the citizenry. Copyrights and patents are rights granted by the government in the name of the people and if they do not serve the public good then they are counterproductive. (You also seem to be in favor of the free market, in which they do not belong.)

then we can join Canada and have ten month waiting lists for OB services.

The idea that Canadians wait longer than Americans for health care has been debunked ad nauseam, so I'm not going to do it again here, but I will point out that you are a bozo. But I guess your handle is truth in advertising. Do you get paid for this kind of astroturfing?

A friend of mine who was admitted to the hospital repeatedly and ended up having brain surgery was treated like some kind of junkie and made to wait for hours in the ER when she went in and complained about head pain. This was in Santa Cruz, California, one of the most expensive places to live in the world. Anecdotes are fun, but you didn't even give an anecdote, you only painted a picture. I prefer photographs.

Short form: put up, or shut up. kthx, bye.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't be denied medical care, just the insurance coverage to pay for it... welcome to the USA.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[TubeSteak]

I was thinking more about their relatives.
Those 10 people aren't the only ones who have those bits of DNA.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. A old Canadian friend called me a couple of days ago and we had a long chat. He says the reason why many Canadians will not work in the US is because they value their health care system and will not give it up. He has a family with 2 kids and I'm sure they've had their share of medical problems over the years and he has no complaints about the care they have received. Whoever is telling you scare stories about the Canadian health care system is wrong. Just check on the infant mortality rate of the US vs Canada. You'd see that their babies are getting much better care.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Anonymous Coward]

President Bush signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act into law this year. Not going to be an issue in the United States.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[ultranova]

I think the idea is that resources are scarce and so if high-risk people are denied coverage more people can be treated because resources can cover more if they're not being spent on people who require expensive treatment. So it's sort of a utilitarian argument.

Considering how much cheaper it is to prevent than to treat, the truly utilitarian thing to do would be to accurately map everyone's risks and tailor a prevention program just for them. From an utilitarian point of view, it is insane to give people incentive to avoid knowing their risks.

But of course the medical industry's purpose isn't to keep people alive or healthy. It is a private business, and like all private businesses, it too exists to make a profit to its owner. Any benefit to anyone else is merely a side effect. That leads to this kind of insanity, but is kept this way anyway because of ideological reasons.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[syousef]

It'll be half a century before we're able to tell enough about a person that it could be considered an invasion of privacy.

So what you're saying is that it's their children and grandchildren that will be refused medical insurance thanks to this "selfless" act.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[ultranova]

A country that cares about its citizens doesn't try to take over the health care industry, it allows people to get the amount or level of insurance they want and don't overload the system by making it free for all. Free for all means mediocre or poor for everyone.

If the system gets overloaded by "free for all", then that means that the system was never sufficient to treat everyone. This is understandable if the system was based on private industry previously, as such a system is naturally sized to only treat the rich, since only that is profitable; however, the countries which have universal healthcare will simply pour more resources into it, expanding it until it is scaled up sufficiently.

Of course that annoys people who think they're John Galt, but, since they really aren't, that's fine.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[jlar]

That's a bunch of crap, and here's why: If you have the money, you can still pay for care in cash if you want to. No one will stop you.

There is no reason why we should pay orders of magnitude more (even with "health insurance") for health care than people in other countries with the same life expectancy... for example, Cuba.

Well I guess the problem is that many people don't have the money if they have to pony up an extra 5-10% in taxes for universal health care.

And with regards to Cuba. Are you willing to forcibly reduce the doctors wages to $20 per month and physically prevent them from seeking abroad to earn more? Or in other words: Are you willing to turn USA into a giant prison camp to get cheap health care?

Are you also willing to implement a system of forced abortions to prevent the weak and sick from entering the world (make the countrys life expectancy drop medical expenses rise)?

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3568278&page=2

http://www.despair.com/achievement.html

Re:I'd do this in a second

[drinkypoo]

Are you willing to turn USA into a giant prison camp to get cheap health care?

I guess you didn't notice, but the USA is already a giant prison camp. We have a no-fly list, lots of people are being denied passports for bullshit reasons (I have a friend who has a paper from the court saying that the child support claim filed against him was bogus, but who still can't get his passport because of it) and arrests for victimless crimes are up considerably in the last couple of years, especially among those desirable for military service. (Military servicewomen are being murdered and the event covered up at ever-increasing rates. I have a niece who just joined the Navy. A woman who joins the Air Force has over a 99% chance of being raped by a fellow member of the service sometime during their career.)

Are you also willing to implement a system of forced abortions to prevent the weak and sick from entering the world (make the countrys life expectancy drop medical expenses rise)?

It couldn't be any worse than a system in which a new medication does not need to be tested to see if it is at least as effective as the medication which it is being sold to replace so that the public will believe that the old medication is outdated - even though it might be better - simply in order to reduce the value of selling a generic drug, and increase profit.

P.S. ABC is disney, disney is the company that convinced the world that lemmings commit suicide by throwing themselves off cliffs by the simple expedient of running them into a panic and chasing them to their watery deaths. They are not and have never been trustworthy.

Incidentally, I only brought up Cuba because even in their supposedly terrible country they "enjoy" the same standard of living that we do (at least medically.) If our nation is so great, why can't we do many times better than they do?

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Eustace Tilley]

What claptrap you post, Anonymous Coward.

Universal medical care is in place in every industrialized country except the U.S., and no infinities have been encountered.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Anonymous Coward]

Emigrate to Somalia.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[TapeCutter]

"They'll never be able to switch insurance again. Leave one job and move to another with different medical - nope."

The US still has a lot of people who think UHC is a communist plot that will "ruin the economy" and "degrade the quality of care". Those people should really take a good look at the rest of the western world where the health systems have progressed well past the 1950's leaving US citizens paying for the most expensive system in the world that arguably produces the worst outcomes in the western world...

Re:I'd do this in a second

[blackest_k]

That's the very real problem of the American Health Care System.
Ok I get the principle "why should I pay for other peoples health care"

But your getting instead a system
Priced at a point to maximise profits, and denies the people who need it most.

Surely the only people who gain are the very rich.

It's not just Health Care which is showing this flaw.

Energy Companies are now working on the same principle, price at what you can get not at what it costs, House prices have no relation to cost it's again sell for the maximum that people can pay and what they can pay has been inflated by credit.

Sat and Cable TV was founded on the principle people were paying far less than what they could afford for TV.

Perhaps the only way round this is to at least part nationalise some of these industries, even with government inefficiency it probably would mean a lower priced alternative, which the private companies would have to compete against.
maybe cooperatives could do it.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[TheLink]

It's not always certain their children have matching DNA... Wink-wink ;).

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Anonymous Coward]

sigh...nobody's going to be denied medical care in our society just the ability to pay for it, JACKASS!

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Catullus]

A woman who joins the Air Force has over a 99% chance of being raped by a fellow member of the service sometime during their career.

Do you have a source for that rather surprising fact?

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Migity]

...erect themselves out of infinitely-available materials?

That's what "she" said! :)

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not meant as an offence, but dude, have you ever been to northern europe? I would think their "mediocre" free health care is better than even the plans only the upper 10% in the US can afford. The quality of public health care is entirely a political decision.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that will give them moral superiority as they declare bankrupcy following a life-saving emergency surgery.

Well, they should be the ones who are against DNA screening. Insurance business relies on FUD or more specifically on their predictions being more accurate then yours. If I knew exactly the chances of getting ill from certain disease of known cost-to treat, then I wouldn't need them at all! I would save in a fund accordingly, or perhaps just decide that rest of my life is not worth it.

Hence, if I am paying too little for my health insurance, I am wasting my money, because I don't need insurance. If I am paying too much, I am wasting my money because I am paying too much AND I am going to need that money later, or because it is not going to help me anyway.

Therefore, it is better for insurer that we are oblivious to our chances, even if it means that once in a while they will have to pay through their noses for some of us.

Those, my friends, are Laws of Infodynamics in effect. No information gradient - no money flow!

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. His arse.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[GauteL]

Well, that will give them moral superiority as they declare bankrupcy following a life-saving emergency surgery.

Or: This will give them moral superiority after they wisely emigrate to Europe where (in at least most countries) they will not have to deal with an insurance company refusing them medical insurance. Instead it all gets covered by national health care, pre-existing condition or not.

Leaving medical coverage to private companies that has no obligation to provide insurance to people not meeting certain health standards is inhumane and evil. At least if your country has enough money to support a proper health system for everyone.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Candid88]

That's just the product of the completely screwed-up health system we have here.

If someone has an increased risk of a type of cancer then of course they and their healthcare provider should know about it. The person can then receive regular screening tests so if cancer does develop, it can be treated early.

Not only is this far obviously far better & safer for the patient but the total cost to the provider of treating the patient is thereby massively reduced as early intervention is almost always far, far cheaper than late intervention.

Having private companies choose on a commercial basis who to cover has created all this absurd ineffiency and often completely idiotic situations like it being better to not know if you have a high cancer risk because it will mean if you do you can't get treated.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[GauteL]

"A country that cares about its citizens doesn't try to take over the health care industry, it allows people to get the amount or level of insurance they want and don't overload the system by making it free for all. Free for all means mediocre or poor for everyone."

Could you please provide some evidence for this statement? Free healthcare is provided in almost the entire Europe and Canada.

Yes, sometimes we have waiting lists for non life threatening operations. People sometimes rightfully complain about things and many things could be improved.

However, not once have I heard anyone seriously suggesting we get rid of nationalised health care. Why? Because health care is generally good, we all know we will be cared for regardless of our current financial status and because nationalised health care saves lives.

Contrary to what you might think, Doctors in the UK (and Norway) tend to like the nationalised health care, despite the fact that they could earn loads more in a privatised system. Why? Because they feel it is morally right and because they know they will never have to turn someone away simply because they don't have money or insurance.

This fantasy world many americans live in with regards to 'socialised medicine' is baffling at times.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Candid88]

The situation isn't anywhere near as simple as "we have X resources to distribute amongst Y patients".

If a known high cancer risk for a specific type of cancer (especially rarer ones) means that that person gets regular screening then if the cancer does develop it can be treated earlier and at far lower total cost then waiting till symptoms develop which by that stage often necessitates some type of Chemotherapy/Radiotherapy and long stays in hosptial, expensive drugs, loads of paperwork etc.

Far cheaper for both individuals and society if genetic predispositions are known and treatment can be tailored spcifically. This is not compatible with our current free market healthcare system which sees us with terrible disease & cancer survival rates compared with the rest of the developed world even though we pay the highest healthcare costs in the world.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Anonymous Coward]

Well free health care does work. Just look at Europe. Plenty of countries over here offer free health care. We may complain now and again about being on a waiting list for a minor procedure, but generally its not that long.

The health service is paid for out of tax revenues and is quite well funded, well here in Ireland at least. The problems with our health system at the moment are administrative and organisational, same goes for the UK.

Nobody should be entitled to a "free ride", but certain communal activities offer a boon to the group as a whole. Free high quality education, free health care provide a highly skilled and healthy workforce that helps insure a countries prosperity.

With an open care system the argument for health insurance being reason to avoid public DNA information goes out the window. Which is scary. Here's a proposal. As our governments seem hell bent on striping away personal privacy and civil liberties one at a time why dont we just get it over and done with? Lets finger print, retina scan, RFID tag, DNA sample and psychologically profile everyone as children. Because this could NEVER lead to people being targeted for discrimination, and our governments and police forces are NEVER corrupt and NEVER plant evidence.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Tharos]

It was the most amazing thing to hear Obama saying that he didn't want to eliminate existing insurance, just provide free coverage for those who can't afford it. He has no clue how many people would stop paying for their existing insurance and go with free, so his projections on cost and workability are skewed. It's the same as every other entitlement program ever enacted. FREE draws crowds of people who can afford it but don't want to pay. What's worse is that those who drop paid insurance for the free stuff are likely to be the ones who don't need much medical care to start with and object to paying insurance for something they don't need. That leaves all the sick people paying insurance because they can't change with an existing condition, which can't provide services because it is no longer getting subsidized by people who are paying but not needing services.

I don't think free insurance is the way to go. Instead in the Netherlands where I live every citizen is obliged to have health care insurance. The basic version which can't be denied to anyone is around 90 euros a month and every citizen has at least this. Those that can't afford it will get compensation up to around 60 euro a month. Who can't afford it is based on Tax reports send in by every citizen. In this way everyone has a right to health care. When you arive at a hospital after a car accident no one will ask for your insurance but they will help you first since everyone is insured. This is a lot better and overal cheaper then the american health care system and in no way a free healthcare system where people want and can get health care for free.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[guruevi]

Is that why I pay so much for healthcare? I pay more per month for health care than I probably use in a year... just in case. This is supposed to be a pooled resource so that people that are less fortunate health-wise can afford to get healthcare. There are hundreds of people like me, only a few like them. Of course insurance companies would like to weed out 'them' from their policies so they don't have to pay out but that's not because of scarce resources (nowhere in the world is there scarcity of any resource, only artificial scarcity by either societies, corporations or governments) it's because of pure greed and profit. Insurance companies should be not-for-profit organizations, only making enough money to cover their expenses and a pool of money that's invested in something with steady returns for pay outs. The fact that insurance companies are listed in stock markets is bad enough.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[partenon]

+1.

It is "funny" that people in America fears that the DNA will be used against them by the insurance companies, while the European people can see the real benefit of being diagnosed with years of antecedence.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[perlchild]

I think you failed to notice their entire medical records were also being released(and as I read only the summary) there is no mention of any anonymizing...

On that note though, except as a publicity stunt, what does science get out of knowing which one is which?

Or is it just a case of so much being known from a person's medical records, they don't have any privacy anymore, so there's no point in anonymizing them?

Re:I'd do this in a second

[partenon]

And what happens when some people don't have the ability to pay for it?

I know that Michael Moore's Sicko is very controversial, but it is shocking to see people not being able get medical care because of lack of money. That old lady which was thrown out from a cab hired by a hospital is enough evidence to me that medical care *is* denied to those who can't pay for it.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[morgauo]

"the problem lies not with the person releasing their information, but with the society in which they live"

No doubt! But... It's not society that pays the price is it? Better safe than sorry on that one I think.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[partenon]

Free for all means mediocre or poor for everyone.

That means: medical care in all other developed western countries is a poor quality one? Please, tell me your are kidding :-)

I guess the main point here is: some cultures sees the capitalism as a "way to achieve things" and other cultures sees it as a "life style".

UHC is seen as a "must have" for the first group, because health is not a "thing". It is a right for every human being. And UHC is evil for the second group, as health is included in the "things" list.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[partenon]

And with regards to Cuba. Are you willing to forcibly reduce the doctors wages to $20 per month and physically prevent them from seeking abroad to earn more?

Does it means that those "3432 medical students from 23 nations" studying in their "first-class" medical schools are forced to work within the country?

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Lord Ender]

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act passed! Don't you people read the news?

loc.gov

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Anonymous Coward]

every western economy can afford universal housing
every western economy can afford universal free food
every western economy can afford universal living stipends

look i just said those things that make me feel good and morally superior, so therefore they are true!

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Toad-san]

"With shocking disregard to their personal privacy"

Where's this guy coming from, and what the HELL is this privacy fetish driving everyone nuts?

If the insurance companies want to filter out the more costly applicants (via DNA or anything else), they're going to do that, and privacy be damned.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[neumayr]

Heh. Social darwinism FTW.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Sobrique]

Which is ok, given that most of the rest of the world have figured out that state sponsored healthcare is a much better idea.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Sobrique]

Mediocre? What on earth gives you that impression? The _average_ cost of treating a person, is significantly less than the healthcare premiums you're paying already for your insurance. That's how your insurance company makes it's money, it's not rocket science. Doubly so when you bear in mind that universal healthcare is tax payer funded, so actually the overheads of the healthcare system are absorbed by more people. Making it fundamentally cheaper.

Oh, and there's no middle man, needing to make a profit for the shareholders.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Sobrique]

How much universal healthcare would you get, for the 3 trillion the war in iraq cost?

If you use the UK NHS as a model, with it's £105bn budget it'd probably about $900bn/year (at least, assuming you got approximately the same price per person).

So it's only about 3 years worth of 'free' healthcare for every man, woman and child in the US. But the thing is, when you start looking at health as a long term proposition, then things like 'health support' campaigns start to become very justifiable in terms of cost benefit ratio - it's worth educating and supporting people before their health hits a 'crisis' point.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Sapphon]

every Western economy can afford universal medical care

Well, sure, if they cut all their other spending and/or ran a budget deficit.

I mean, I could live in a palace if I stopped spending money on food and/or took out a huge loan. But that's just unrealistic.

The fact is, scarcity does apply. It always applies. Otherwise every Government would just give their voters everything they want, and a bit more on top.

Please note: I'm not talking about basic medical health care for everyone. That is well within the abilities of every western government to provide. But in the context of this discussion we appear to be talking about the more rare, more expensive ailments – and covering those medical expenditures for everyone certainly isn't something western governments can do.

Even the Swedes, often a shining example of what a socialist-democratic state can achieve, have had to roll back their health cover in recent years. Ditto the Germans.

You can't save everyone from everything.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Sapphon]

the truly utilitarian thing to do would be to accurately map everyone's risks and tailor a prevention program just for them.

That would be true if (and only if) the net benefits of mapping out everyone's risks are higher than the benefits that could otherwhise be acheived with those same resources. The problem isn't the cost of prevention, it's know who needs to prevent against what.

Given that accurately mapping out every single person's risks is (currently) horrendously expensive, society would be much better off taking that same money and utilising it in other ways, for example:
  - preventing against the most common illness/those with the most impact
  - researching to reduce the cost of risk mapping
  - simply investing it and using the benefits to treat whatever illnesses crop up.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Anonymous Coward]

Little known fact: The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act prevents this. It may be the only good thing the President has done in 8 years. Your health insurance company and employer cannot use your genetic information against you.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Idiomatick]

Don't live in america. The rest of the world tries to care for their own people.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[BLKMGK]

And me without mod points...

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Keith_Beef]

A country that cares about its citizens doesn't try to take over the health care industry, it allows people to get the amount or level of insurance they want and don't overload the system by making it free for all. Free for all means mediocre or poor for everyone.

Whereas the system as it stands in the US currently seems to be that:

• the many, who can afford it,
  1. pay a substantial percentage of their income in insurance premiums,
  2. get a mediocre system and mediocre outcomes
• the few, who can easily afford it,
  1. pay a small percentage of their income in insurance premiums,
  2. get a good system and mediocre outcomes
• a sizable minority,
  1. cannot find insurance with affordable premiums,
  2. get a dire system and mediocre outcomes

  Your example of Hawaii seems irrelevant. One incompetent attempt at implementing a system does not invalidate the system itself; it only serves to demonstrate the incompetence of that particular implementation.

  Compare the seven months of the Hawaiian system with sixty years of the British system (not perfect, but a damn sight more efficient than the US system), the French system, the German system...

  More importantly, compare the overall US performance with five other developed countries. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678

  Lastly, it is pointless to draw Obama into the discussion. He's a politician, he'll say anything his campaign advisors tell him will win votes. He probably hasn't a clue what his proposals would really cost, nor where the money would come from. But then his opponent has no real clue either...

  K.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[philspear]

Two things
1. Enforcement of that relies on your ability to prove you were turned down because of your genetics and not because of some other reason they made up. I don't think it's likely this will do anything but force insurance companies to become stealthy about it.

2. Can the insurance companies still claim it was a pre-existing condition and deny coverage on that disorder? The counter argument to that would be a genetic test in many cases only shows you're LIKELY to get a disease, but you don't already have it. Again though, it's a broken system, and if you're in court and make that argument, you're probably going to lose against the health insurance's lawyers.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Lord Ender]

Covertly violating this law wouldn't pass risk analysis at even the evilest of insurance companies (is there another kind?). All it takes is one disgruntled employee or whistleblower to shut you down. They will just comply.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[jlar]

And with regards to Cuba. Are you willing to forcibly reduce the doctors wages to $20 per month and physically prevent them from seeking abroad to earn more?

Does it means that those "3432 medical students from 23 nations" studying in their "first-class" medical schools are forced to work within the country?

No it means that Cuban citizens can't leave the country. I fail to see how admission of foreign medical students into Cuban schools affects that.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[philspear]

That's true, but assumes the insurance company is smart enough to think about it in terms like that, and also assumes there's no way to cover their asses legally. I'm more than willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater in this case, health insurance needs to go.

Re:I'd do this in a second

[drinkypoo]

It's some shit I made up - kind of. We do know that at least 24% of female inductees to one academy were raped, we also know that only a tiny percentage of rape allegations are false and that rape is underreported. Meanwhile, there have been many charges of rape and murder against US soldiers, and many US servicewomen in the mideast have been going mysteriously missing with no explanations offered as to the reasons for their disappearance.

In addition, the military is getting desperate. Drug crime conviction rates have been going steadily up since the Clinton days - specifically among the 18-35 set. These "criminals" are increasingly offered suspended or even revoked sentences for entering the military. Pretty typical. More worrying however is that induction standards have generally fallen off across the board; the military has increasingly been willing to knowingly recruit white supremacists, and white supremacists are actually recruiting current and ex-military as well! When you train people to violence, they become more violent. Does this sound like a good idea to you?

Re:I'd do this in a second

[Xaria]

*yawn* You've made assumptions about what would happen. Try looking at a few countries where it exists. Don't get me wrong, it's not perfect. But in Australia we have a choice. Private health insurance is subsidized and the private hospitals are much nicer, and if you have a high income you get hit with a hefty levy for Medicare if you're not on private health insurance. Those who can afford to pay do so, whether they want to or not.

I made three phone calls when I fell pregnant. One obstetrician was booked out, the other two were available. I got into my hospital of choice. It works beautifully. Our public system is underfunded, but at least it exists.

Just maybe...

[DerekLyons]

With shocking disregard to their personal privacy, at least 10 people volunteered to release their entire medical records and DNA sequences in order to get their DNA decoded and analyzed.

Or, just possibly, they are rational individuals who lack the privacy fetish and extremism so common on Slashdot.

Re:Just maybe...

[Fluffeh]

With shocking disregard to their personal privacy, at least 10 people volunteered to release their entire medical records and DNA sequences in order to get their DNA decoded and analyzed.

Or, just possibly, they are rational individuals who lack the privacy fetish and extremism so common on Slashdot.

Quick Slashies! An imposter! Grab your flaming brands and pitchforks! We have an angry mob to form!

Re:Just maybe...

[lymond01]

Sure, right now it might be fine to be descended from apes, but who knows who'll take office in 10 years! Maybe Tom Cruise and then where will you monkey-derived, xenuphobic people be? Guantanamo Bay. That's right.

Re:Just maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe because they haven't thought of the implications such as being diagnosed for 50 possible genetic diseases in the future and their insurance rates going through the roof...

Re:Just maybe...

[dedazo]

Everyone is looking forward to the day we can lick the gloved finger of a TSA goon to figure whether or not we're allowed on the 3:15 to Chicago.

Re:Just maybe...

[syousef]

Or, just possibly, they are rational individuals who lack the privacy fetish and extremism so common on Slashdot.

Fetish eh?

Call me a fetishist when health insurance companies aren't rubbing their hands waiting to use such data to bump up premiums or refuse claims. Or perhaps when law enforcement understands that with over 6.7 billion people on the planet a 1 in 1 million chance of DNA data being incorrectly administered isn't good enough - that could put over 6700 people in jail. Or wake me when we've completely eliminated any threat of a government deciding who can and can't breed based on what's in their genes.

I have a "fetish" for privacy just as I have a fetish for air and water. I need to secure these things to guarantee my survival.

Re:Just maybe...

[Aurisor]

Get out of my teeth!

Re:Just maybe...

[sortius_nod]

I prefer to use killer robot armies, but pitchforks, flaming brands, works for me.

Re:Just maybe...

[DerekLyons]

Does your tinfoil hat chafe much?

Re:Just maybe...

[Qzukk]

Or, just possibly, they are rational individuals who lack the privacy fetish and extremism so common on Slashdot.

Isn't that what was said about MySpace and Facebook before people started getting fired?

Re:Just maybe...

[Ethanol-fueled]

Agreed, without robot armies we'd have to leave our parents' basement to use pitchforks and flaming torches.

Re:Just maybe...

[syousef]

Does your tinfoil hat chafe much?

It's not a question of paranoia. It's a question of what makes sense, and what's true historically.

From the point of view of the organisations...

It makes sense for insurers to try to deny claims whenever they can, and they've done so in the past.
It makes sense for governments to want increased control over its citizenry, and historically control almost always increases, especially with technology enabling it.
It makes sense that law enforcement tends to make mistakes because they're tasked with a lot and usually under-resourced. Corruption also historically does occur despite best efforts - it's human nature.

It's easy to dismiss someone as a nutjob and make offhand stereotypical comments about tinfoil hats. It's a lot harder to make a reasonable, sensible rational argument that requires neither paranoid dillusion or blind faith in a set of systems that have been shown to be flawed.

Re:Just maybe...

[dhelgason]

I agree with parent poster that surely one's own privacy is something one can decide for oneself to flout.

But: one shares 50% of ones DNA with siblings, parents, and children, making such a decision forcibly reveal their DNA as well. Perhaps Pinker et al. did consult their closest relatives, but as a general principle I think that individual DNA should never be publicly available.

When population genomics company DeCode wanted to create a large research database of Icelandic DNA, this was one of the problems they faced.

d.

Re:Just maybe...

[khallow]

Or, just possibly, they are rational individuals who lack the privacy fetish and extremism so common on Slashdot.

There are two things to consider here. First, being one of a small number of people to volunteer such information may be highly advantageous. That is, the harm from releasing such information may be more than countered by being readily accessible to researchers. Ie, because your data is there, genetic diseases that manifest in your genes are more likely to get treated than diseases without such an accessible genetic record.

But it's irrational to assume the same would hold, if you are one of several billion people. You would no longer get preferential treatment and your genetic records would make you a target for all sorts of chicanry and exploitation. The obvious places this matters is health insurance and advertising. At the least, ethnicity and many medical conditions woule be revealed. Further, with a large group of people, it becomes worthwhile to datamine that DNA data for profitable things to exploit. Ten people just isn't worth the effort, but five billion people most certainly will be worth the effort and I wager someone with ruthless intentions will find some way to abuse this data in a terrible way.

And that's a big part of the problem. We know that DNA is in itself just about everything you need to make a human with similar characteristics. Who knows what information is encoded about us, our personalities, the way we think or act, etc? Just giving everyone this information without any understanding of the consequences is not rational.

Re:Just maybe...

[maxume]

Why not just argue that private insurance based on complete information isn't something that you think will work for society?

Re:Just maybe...

[Dutch Gun]

Isn't that what was said about MySpace and Facebook before people started getting fired?

For blogging about what an asshole their boss is, typically. Or for posting pics of yourself involved in questionable activities. Yes, that will get you fired. One has a harder time claiming "privacy violation" when you willing post incriminating information about yourself to a public forum. Honestly, I'd call that a lack of judgment rather than a lack of privacy.

I'd call the current blog/MySpace craze a different fetish: A desire to share the most intimate details of your life with the entire world. Pretty much the opposite of a privacy fetish, if you ask me.

Is a DNA sequence/medical record in the same realm as this? Maybe, maybe not. I don't think I would have volunteered.

Re:Just maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

They are also individuals who surely have already proven their worth to the society and therefore have no fear of administrative instant retirement.

Re:Just maybe...

[Hognoxious]

So in Iceland even the gene bank is insolvent?

Re:Just maybe...

[Qzukk]

One has a harder time claiming "privacy violation"

True, but people can point and say that they are displaying "shocking disregard to their personal privacy", which is what the original poster was whining about.

Re:Just maybe...

[kabocox]

Or, just possibly, they are rational individuals who lack the privacy fetish and extremism so common on Slashdot.

I read this wrong... I read it as they are rash individuals who lack the privacy fetish and rationalism so common on Slashdot.

Re:Just maybe...

[Doggabone]

I prefer to use killer robot armies, but pitchforks, flaming brands, works for me.

These are not mutually exclusive. Robot armies wielding pitchforks and flaming brands!

Re:Just maybe...

[Sobrique]

And then they might have to move to a country that didn't have such regressive understanding of what healthcare actually means.

Re:Just maybe...

[Sobrique]

Actually in the places where universal healthcare exists, it's actually a positive thing that could could datamine and screen patients with risk factors. Treating heart disease is both easier and cheaper when it's done early, for example. Of course, that presumes you're in a country that doesn't consider basic quality of life details such as healthcare a profit source.

Re:Just maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

With shocking disregard to their personal privacy, at least 10 people volunteered to release their entire medical records and DNA sequences in order to get their DNA decoded and analyzed.

Or, just possibly, they are rational individuals who lack the privacy fetish and extremism so common on Slashdot.

Either way, I think the project's name PGP isn't apt ...

Re:Just maybe...

[khallow]

Actually in the places where universal healthcare exists, it's actually a positive thing that could could datamine and screen patients with risk factors. Treating heart disease is both easier and cheaper when it's done early, for example. Of course, that presumes you're in a country that doesn't consider basic quality of life details such as healthcare a profit source.

I guess you didn't read my post. There are other things that are problems than just health care. Further, I don't see why it is supposed to be a "positive" thing to give government that kind of information.

Announcing DNAHarmony.com

[Anonymous Coward]

With our easy DNA submission process, we'll find you the most genetically compatible partners on Earth. Isn't it time you gave up a little privacy for a chance at optimal mating?

Re:Announcing DNAHarmony.com

[DeadManCoding]

Now this is funny! Somebody give this person a +1!

Re:Announcing DNAHarmony.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Now this is funny! Somebody give this person a +1!

But, not this person.

Re:Announcing DNAHarmony.com

[Miststlkr]

Our computers will individually combine your DNA codes and display an potential image of your offspring alongside each individual's profile image. For a small fee, you can also sign up for our DNAHarmony Pro package which allows you to select the most desired traits in your offspring and we will find you potential mates who have the best percentage chance of meeting your desired goals.

Re:Announcing DNAHarmony.com

[uberjack]

(disclaimer: DNAHarmony cannot be held responsible for the almost-certain birth defects that are likely to accompany our matches, should they choose to procreate)

Re:Announcing DNAHarmony.com

[Anonymous Coward]

the scary thing is the site actually exists! (I dont think any slashdotter would have had the time to set it up in the minutes follwing this post)

Re:Announcing DNAHarmony.com

[couchslug]

"With our easy DNA submission process, we'll find you the most genetically compatible partners on Earth. Isn't it time you gave up a little privacy for a chance at optimal mating?"

No problem with a sample. I'll just send in my keyboard and they can pour out as much as they like.

Re:Announcing DNAHarmony.com

[Kingrames]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kwe2fzHXcI&feature=user one step closer.

Re:Announcing DNAHarmony.com

[Higaran]

There was a scifi show a while back, I cant remember the name of it. There was a post WW3 type earth, and most people lived in few cities because anythone that chose to life outside would probably get mutated from the radiation. Everyone that lived in a city had a dna scan and a coresponding jewel implanted in thir skin, at the chest just under the neck line. The people were told that if they mated with someone of the same type jewel as them that there would be less birth defects and have a superior child or something to that effect. I haven't seen it in over 15 years.

Re:Announcing DNAHarmony.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Shockingly, my most genetically compatible partner is myself. But then I already knew that since puberty... I want my money back!

Re:Announcing DNAHarmony.com

[glwtta]

Mating with yourself, dubious mechanics of it aside, is virtually certain to produce non-viable offspring. If memory serves, duplicating any chromosome (ie throwing out one half of the pair and duplicating the other) has about a 1 in 3 chance of uncovering a recessive lethal allele. And you have a 50% chance, for each of the 22 autosomes, of getting such a duplication if your parental genomes are identical.

Not good odds, that.

(I realize that I may have treated that comment more seriously than it was intended)

New facebook app!

[Anonymous Coward]

7 of your friends have similar DNA! Compare yourself with thousands of other people with DNACompare!

Interesting, but I'll keep my genetics to myself. I'd rather not know that I have very common genes with someone I hate.

Re:New facebook app!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be more concerned with having common genes with someone whom I love.

Actually, now that I think about it, that might be a good thing to know...

On the other hand, I probably shouldn't worry about that, as pheromones make people attracted to those who are genetically dissimilar to them.

On the third hand, I am on slashdot. I don't have a girlfriend!

Coming from someone who cares about security

[BorgAssimilator]

As long as they didn't put information about the person who the DNA came from up on the internet (name, contact information, etc), and didn't give that information out to anyone, I don't see a problem with it. (TFA didn't have any details about this) Without said information, all that anyone would be able to tell when they match the DNA is that "Oh, this person volunteered for this experiment."

That being said though, I'm sure the government(s) would find ways to force this information out of them if needed in some unconstitutional way, so I donno....

Re:Coming from someone who cares about security

[dex22]

This is not necessarily true. The UK DNA database allows the police to make educated guesses about the last name of the originator of a DNA sample, as your father often will have the surname name as you. Is it a stretch that with a possible name, race, and good probabilities of the contents of their medical records, it only takes a small push to get laws passed making this information part of the Government-accessible domain?

Re:Coming from someone who cares about security

[Anonymous Coward]

That being said though, I'm sure the government(s) would find ways to force this information out of them if needed in some unconstitutional way, so I donno....

In California, they don't have to force it out of them -- we've already given the state the right to "collect" (doesn't that sound agreeable and non-intrusive?). Yes, indeed -- a couple of years back, the most retarded among us voted to allow collection of a DNA sample UPON ARREST!!! Not upon indictment or conviction, but UPON ARREST.

If a cop wants your DNA, all he has to do is come up with a bullshit (but defensible) reason to "arrest" you. Any cop who doesn't know a halfway justifiable way to provoke you into an arrestable position wasn't paying attention in his police academy classes. Just like the bullshit, uncontestable "weaving in traffic" charge to stop you and sniff around your car, where he could "in good faith" claim to smell pot, triggering a full search of your entire car, including the trunk, where you store the dead bodies awaiting burial in shallow graves.

Of course, when tried and found not guilty, you can "apply" to have the sample destroyed. Anyone want to bet the "destruction" is carried out under supervision of you and your lawyer and documented as unusable in any past or future case against you? Just lay your wager on the black square marked "fucked".

Hah! captcha = "consents".

Re:Coming from someone who cares about security

[CarbonShell]

Why not just let people sign up using only a number and some 'trivial' information like hair/eye color, sex, 'race', age. Just enough so they can do scientific research but nothing more.

If they do not get more then such information, they cannot give more to anyone else.

Then I would be fine with giving out my dna and data.

Re:Coming from someone who cares about security

[kabocox]

This is not necessarily true. The UK DNA database allows the police to make educated guesses about the last name of the originator of a DNA sample, as your father often will have the surname name as you. Is it a stretch that with a possible name, race, and good probabilities of the contents of their medical records, it only takes a small push to get laws passed making this information part of the Government-accessible domain?

I actually could careless if we had a decent federal department that kept track of all of our medical records and such. In theory, it'd be a better thing than what we currently have. Where privacy comes in, is that I don't care if medical workers see that info. Where I start "caring" is if "the government" started giving or tried to give access to that info to insurance companies, family members, the public, potential mates, non-medical related government departments, or various mad scientist researchers.

Re:Coming from someone who cares about security

[BLKMGK]

I looked into this project. As I recall those who receive the information about you do not actually receive WHO you are. That is one of the protections in place if my memory serves. However someone obviously knows who you are since any results of the sequencing and research are supposed to be passed back to you as a condition of participating. That said, they do not guarantee privacy because it's possible someone will be able to figure out who you are by reading medical records or some other quirk. On top of that these folks apparently announced that they are participating so duh yeah we know who they are but I do not recall that as a requirement to participate. Unless I am remembering incorrectly I do not think that there's going to be a Wiki with your DNA plastered on it and your complete medical history for all to see. Instead there will be a repository with DNA and medical histories stored for qualified researchers to examine and report results back to - said results then get passed back to the people who volunteered.

so long as the people doing the passing of information are ethical and the researchers do not spend all of their time trying to figure out WHO volunteered and instead do the research they signed up for I do not see a problem with this and would have participated myself were it not for the entrance fees of a couple grand. IMO DNA science has the potential for a great deal of benefit in this case. If they can predict a disease or find something else that could benefit others then I say go for it - I'd volunteer.

Re:Coming from someone who cares about security

[BLKMGK]

Go check out their home page http://www.personalgenomes.org/

Click on the signup buttons and whatnot and you'll get much more data than some lame article. I did this a few months ago after seeing something about it here or on DIGG and there appeared to be adequate protections in place. Unfortunately there was the small issue of sign up fees too.

Interestingly - going to the page myself I see no mention of specific fees but instead they ask you to "pledge". Seems to me that this ios now going to be a case of high "bidders" go first - a shame :-( I'm pretty sure that this is not what I saw previously but I'm not willing to dig through wayback to be sure....

I'm in ur base...

[Anonymous Coward]

... decoding ur alleles.

Gattaca-gattaca-POW!

What doesn't happen to 10 will happen to 10M.

[Anonymous Coward]

The threat of publicly-available genetic profiles is that insurers will use them to increase premiums or deny coverage to people with markers for certain diseases or vulnerabilities.

If only ten people's DNA information is available, that will not make a difference in the bottom line. Ten thousand people is worth study. Ten million people, now we're talking serious bottom-line savings by eliminating all that sickly deadwood!

And that's before getting into the possibility of cooking up some random person's DNA on the fly to use as planted evidence...

Re:What doesn't happen to 10 will happen to 10M.

[Anonymous Coward]

Make a law and most of those problems will go away. You're missing the bigger picture. Once DNA testing becomes cheap and easy, dating will be very different. After money or looks, genetic compatibility will be the next thing people will look at.

"Shocking disregard..."?

[dex22]

There is nothing unethical in this, but it does cause some problems. These people are not participating in a study, and therefore have not given Informed Consent. Instead, they have made their own decision to publish these details about themselves.

The problem is that this could lower the bar for expectations in formal medical studies in the future. It opens the door for study protocols that contain eroded protections for human research participants. It becomes more important than ever that the Independent Review Boards continue to carefully protect human participants from the subtle or obvious discrimination that can occur when this type of information can be associated with a person's identity.

Volunteer

[Arthur B.]

Volunteered, volunteered, volunteered... Why does the summary insists on this ? For all I know many people would pay a lot of money for that.

genetic exhibitionists

[circletimessquare]

exhibitionists are those who flaunt in public happily that which conventional wisdom has decided should be kept private. usually not for a better intellectual or moral reason, mainly just because of ego. mostly harmless

Re:genetic exhibitionists

[glwtta]

Well, that was certainly the case with Craig Venter - he switched the blood samples from the anonymous panel for Celera's genome project with his own; more recently had his complete diploid genome published, etc; and is certainly known for his ego - but I do believe that these guys are sincere.

I really don't think we can claim "conventional wisdom" in this area yet - it's really only starting to become something relevant to people's lives. With constantly lowering costs, the explosion in the amount of personalized genomic and genetic (and proteomic, and transcriptional) data is coming - the coveted "$1000 genome" is well within sight, and the potential benefits to medicine are huge.

It's also probably unrealistic to expect complete privacy as this becomes more prevalent, so maybe learning to deal with some amount of transparency from the beginning is a good thing?

Vanity press for skin flakes

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure what we might learn that we couldn't learn with anonymous sequences and surveys.

And the genome has lost that be-all-and-end-all status that it had years back. After all the genome is just a dead sequence that doesn't take into account all those epigenetic changes that come from living and making choices in each cell line or even each individual cell.

If this is voluntary, I'm for it, but if it is used in future as the thin end of the wedge (look, it turned out allright, so lets start such screening for everyone perhaps with the start or universal healthcare), then it will be gattaca time, and they will make us fly to space in double-breasted suits. Yuk.

Helping the project

[Andr T.]

The goal of the project is to speed medical research by dispensing with the elaborate precautions traditionally taken to protect the privacy of human subjects.

I know Ms. Dyson fetish: space sex.

Summary totally misses the point

[confusednoise]

This is a Your Rights Online issue? I'm not going to argue that there are no privacy issues with personal genetics (there obviously are), but framing this article in this way *totally* misses the point of the Personal Genome Project.

Actually, what's going on is that with the aid of new sequencing technologies and LOTS of bitchin' huge computers, we're entering an age where we can take on sequencing multiple individuals with the goal of furthering scientific exploration and medical knowledge.

If the only way you can see that is as a violation of your privacy (and it's not yours, by the way, but the people who volunteered for the study), then you are severely lacking in imagination, scientific curiosity, or just another Luddite howling "wolf" at every mention of human genetics.

Personal Genome Project

[PearsSoap]

Apparently, PGP != Pretty Good Privacy.

But, seriously, I doubt that there's anything useful that a non-research-geneticist could do with the data, even if it was public.

Re:Personal Genome Project

[Draek]

But, seriously, I doubt that there's anything useful that a non-research-geneticist could do with the data, even if it was public.

Well, we won't know unless we try, right?

Plus as Linus once said, real men upload their stuff to FTP and let the world mirror it, so having your own DNA copied all around the world is bound to be the pinnacle of manliness.

Gattaca

[Dragonfire00]

Gattaca!!

Re:Gattaca

[maxume]

The human spirit will overcome this 'horrible' abuse?

for the lucky 8...

[brainwash]

...time to unlock those plasmids

Notihng New

[gooman]

People have always been able to determine someones sex by looking into their jeans.

Oh wait...

Can I release mine under GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

That way any derivative work and source code also has to be made available under terms of the GPL. Right?

Might even be useful in stoping stupid patents on subroutines and functions contained within the set. It works for software in that way, why not DNA code?

Re:Can I release mine under GPL?

[guyminuslife]

If you did, you'd probably want to get sterilized for legal reasons. Children might count as derivative work; if you didn't have the rights to release their DNA also under the GPL, then you would be violating your own license. And they would have to release their childrens' DNA, which would likely infringe upon some right or another. I would assume that any self-respecting court would not consider the GPL to apply to DNA.

All of this is hypothetical, of course, since Slashdotters don't get laid.

Face Recognition?

[nurb432]

Does this get added to that database discussed earler? Oh, and along with the tracking of your daily activities ?

Sylar sez

[dedazo]

Let's go make a list, Mohinder!

strangely

[Dolphinzilla]

I am not at all shocked - I am sure I have left genetic material over more than one continent - if someone wanted to sequence my DNA and post it on the Internet - HAVE FUN !!!!

Masturbation Gene

[Sperbels]

Let's see how cavalier they are about this when we find the gene that tells us how often one masturbates.

Re:Masturbation Gene

[nrlightfoot]

No need to wait for that, just look at their myspace pages.

Re:Masturbation Gene

[Anonymous Coward]

I propose a novel method where we look not at the qualities of any one particular gene, but rather at the quantity of genetic material that can be recovered from places such as keyboards, tube socks, suspiciously located rags, and thrown-away tissues.

Mark my words, it won't be long before insurance company representatives will stand outside on garbage day and dig through your used kleenexes to determine your risk of prostate cancer.

Re:Masturbation Gene

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there is some research that rs4795541 is linked to premature ejaculation

Re:Masturbation Gene

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see how cavalier they are about this when we find the gene that tells us how often one masturbates.

In the context of slashdot, that would be like moving to Arkansas where there are only three sets of DNA for the whole state.

Oh hey

[kjzk]

See! Nothing happened! I'm sold.

/sarcasm

Please, please, please...

[msauve]

don't anyone clone Esther using her genome. One is more than enough.

Lets hope it encourages others

[nx6310]

Who knows with all that collective intelligence and distributed computing power, or what can be discovered by some kid with 12 xbox 360's lying around analyzing this info?

Kudos to the fantastic ten.

Privacy is personal

[ark1]

What is private for someone may not necessarily be for someone else. As long as they were the one making the decision while hopefully knowing the consequences, there is nothing wrong.

Whatever

[guyminuslife]

Subby: Don't do that! You're violating your own privacy!
Volunteer: I'm doing this for the benefit of science.
Subby: Yes, but then...people can look up your DNA and medical records!
Volunteer: Uh. That's the point.
Subby: But people can see them!
Volunteer: Yes. I understand that. I am. Voluntarily. Releasing. My. Own. Records.
Subby: But bad stuff could happen!
Volunteer: Probably not. But I'm okay if it does. The overall benefits outweigh the personal risk.
Subby: But that's....bad!
Volunteer: Why?
Subby puts on tin-foil hat.

Re:Whatever

[Trailer Trash]

Subby puts on tin-foil hat.

As if he's had it off in the last 10 years.

BSD is better

[EmbeddedJanitor]

That way if you share your DNA with someone they don't have to tell the world about it and you won't get ratted out to your wife.

Re:BSD is better

[YourExperiment]

At least with the GPL, if they mutate my DNA to create a race of super-soldiers, they have to release the changes to the community.

Re:BSD is better

[Anonymous Coward]

but beware, you might get struck with STD, which IS viral

DNA Sequences will not be patentable now

[schwep]

Since the DNA sequences are being published, they now can be used as prior art in patent busting. No more patents on human genes!

Re:DNA Sequences will not be patentable now

[Beefpatrol]

Interesting point. We won't really find out what large companies might plan to do with DNA data by releasing data on 10 people anyway. I'm sure that the expense of trying to use that data wouldn't be worth the gain that might come from making business decisions regarding 10 people. At the same time, these people are also releasing information about any offspring, parents, siblings, and other blood relatives they might have now or in the future. I keep hoping that at some point people in charge of entities that exploit other people will get the clue that they might, some day, end up at the other end of the exploitation deal, and will then stop doing it. I'm not holding my breath though.

Good goal

[philspear]

aimed at challenging the conventional wisdom that the secrets of our genes are best kept to ourselves.

That conventional wisdom REALLY needed to be challenged. Next CW up for challenge: the idea that you shouldn't give strangers your ATM card and PIN number.

Re:Good goal

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you're totally gunna steal their DNA and use it to enhance your own. It's only fair.. since the global DNA crunch, no one has any DNA to spare.

Phil, sometimes your really make me want to facepalm.

Re:Good goal

[Belial6]

Next CW up for challenge: the idea that you shouldn't give strangers your ATM card and PIN number.

Too late. The 'Check Card' that has become almost ubiquitous is an ATM card that has no PIN number so is always known as nothing. So, the banks have already handed out the PIN number to strangers.

Re:Good goal

[Vegeta99]

Your bank is pants.

My bank is pants too, but my check card has a pin, I cannot withdraw cash without it, and I'm not liable for any fraud cause by a non-PIN transaction (ie, one over the VISA network)

Re:Good goal

[Belial6]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'pants', but as for check cards, having a 'PIN' when money can be withdrawn without one is the same as not having one at all. If a crook can just choose to not use the PIN, you choosing to use one is just security theater. As for you not being liable for fraud, different banks will have different levels of service with that. In a worst case scenario, you have to prove that it was fraud to get your money back, and even in the best case scenarios, you are still out the money until you report it. That is plenty of time for your mortgage check to bounce, your car payment check to bounce, as well as any other checks you might have written. Your bank does NOT guarantee that the fees generated by those bounced checks will be covered.

I am consistently surprised at the number of people that accept having their bank account opened up to anyone that can get their hands on their card with no security whatsoever. Then if they happen to be the unlucky person who gets their bank account drained, they think the bank if doing them a favor if they get their money back that the bank gave away in the first place.

Heck, Visa ADVERTISES that 'check cards' are easy to commit fraud with.

Re:Good goal

[Vegeta99]

(Your bank sucks. So does mine, but...)

What bank allows customers to use ATMs without a pin? I CANNOT take out cash without the pin. You're not allowed to get "cash back" from a signature transaction, just purchase things. And, if someone steals the card, i know that at least MY bank - and most i know - will refund fees they charged you (zero fraud liability). If I bounce a check, they'll at least call the place I bounced to tell them it wasn't my fauly.

Now, if someone gets my PIN and I don't turn the card off fast enough, then I'm boned. 100% fraud liability.

Re:Good goal

[Belial6]

Every bank allows you to take out cash without a PIN. The process goes like this. You go into Home Depot. Buy some power tools. Go out to the parking lot. Sell tools for half their cost for cash.

Their zero fraud liability are only with the bank. So, any fees you get from the people that you wrote checks to, or raised interest rates are not going to be refunded.

Sure they will make the call, but now your counting on the good will of profit seeking businesses. Sometimes they will show it. Sometimes they won't.

Even in a best case scenario, you are cleaning up a mess that should never have been created in the first place. This isn't free, unless you time has no value.

'Check Cards' are a crappy system, and the banks know it. I am just amazed at how many consumers don't get it. Even when VISA themselves advertise on national TV just how easy it is to commit fraud with them.

I would much rather VISA produce a credit card that DOES require a password than partnering up with banks to remove the password from ATM cards.

'Check Cards' offer no value to anyone above and beyond regular credit cards. They only add risk.

Replay?

[nog_lorp]

If you look on the Human Genome Browser right now (http://genome.ucsc.edu/), those from people who volunteered to have their genomes posted online. I'm pretty sure Dog is from one of the first guys Labrador Retriever if I recall.

Re:Replay?

[fishinatree]

So they'd just better hope the SPCA doesn't get wind of this and start protecting the dog's right to genetic privacy as well...

Employment woes? Maybe not.......

[Anachragnome]

Personnel Flunkie #1: "Fuck Dave, your still going through the DNA filters on the new applicants? Whats tak...BITCH!...ing you so long?"

Personnel Flunkie #2: "Get bent. Every single one of these mutants has somet...KAKA!...hing wrong with them. This guy has alcoholism markers, this sick fuck has a predisposition to pedophilia......Wait! This guy just has Tourette's. He'll fit right in."

Re: Forfeit of Privacy, not invasion

[TaoPhoenix]

Yes, it's knowing, so it's not an invasion. It's a forfeit, perhaps a sacrifice. Now we get to see if the sacrifice is unsound.

Re: G. I. N. A.

[TaoPhoenix]

You lose.

Wait till they find a hot gene that predisposes towards something rough.

Oh, very young.

[Anonymous Coward]

Esther Dyson, a trainee astronaut

I have to wonder how young and tender someone needs to be to think that a possible trip to space is the most interesting link to E.D.

Re:Oh, very young.

[PotatoFiend]

This is a new low for you Esther, pimping your dubious accomplishments as an AC on Slashdot!

It will be quite an ego check for you when you visit the ISS and discover that the Earth in fact continues to exist when you're not on it.

Patent Trolls! to the Batcave!

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick! Patent those sequences.
Sue the individuals for infringement ...profit!

Is this THE Esther Dyson?

[Ritchie70]

If it is, and I assume that is the case, referring to Esther Dyson as a trainee astronaut is a rather laughable description of her career and importance.

Just think

[PPH]

We will look back at people who were labeled as perverts for leaving their DNA lying around in public like Paul Reubens and realize that they were just ahead of their time.

Excellent!

[actionbastard]

Now I can clone my own Esther Dyson and make out with her.

Technology mixes with Science?

[fishinatree]

"A potential boyfriend could look at my genome and say, 'I don't know if this relationship is meant to be,' " said John Halamka, a participant and the chief information officer of Harvard Medical School, who has a 15-year-old daughter."

That's from the Telegraph article. Based on what we know of DNA at this point, personality traits are not determinable (to a certain, realistic extent) by genomes. Thinking of this sort is technology mixing with science, which just leads to idiotic comments such as this. Is it supposed to be a "futuristic projection?" Seriously...

Trainee astronaut?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Esther Dyson is not merely a "trainee astronaut" She's a founding member and one of the most influential people at ICANN. Lacking a penis means we can't bother giving her space equal to Pinker in the story teaser?

Re:Trainee astronaut?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the same treatment was given to a man in a summary a few weeks back...

O.S.M.

[buddyglass]

Open Source Meatware.

Wow! Shocking Disregard!!!

[Trailer Trash]

If the folks behind this wish to post the DNA sequence of a 40-year old male with blonde hair, blue eyes, and psoriasis (a genetic immune disorder), let me know. I have recently donated to a tissue bank for psoriasis research, and would gladly donate to your research, too.

Nonsense

[Jane Q. Public]

I work for a corporation that supports a genomics foundation (no names here). We can take a sample of DNA and tell with some certainty who some of your specific ancestors are (and I don't mean paternity lawsuits). Things are not nearly as murky as you make them out to be.

There is still a great deal to learn, surely. Including how much of our individual physical makeup is not strictly determined simply by DNA sequences. But... since the advent of the PCR and other tools, the research and knowledge have advanced quite a bit beyond what you claim here.

Re:You already posted in this article.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you stop whinging about twitter?

I for one am sick of you going on about it. Posting anon so I dont undo mod.

Falconhell

When you're rich and tenured...

[dstates]

It is one thing to release your genome sequence when you are wealthy and have tenure at Harvard. It is quite another thing to do this an ordinary citizen who might want to change jobs and is not in a position to personally endow their child's health care. At the moment medical genetics is much better at diagnosing conditions than it is at offering cures for those conditions. We are making progress in guaranteeing rights against discrimination on the basis of genetics, but we have a long way to go.

With shocking disregard to their personal privacy?

[DaSwing]

Making information about yourself available doesn't mean you disregard your personal privacy, as long as it's voluntary. Privacy means that you can seclude or reveal information about yourself, according to your own wishes.

It's okay, children

[drinkypoo]

...it's okay to mark me troll when I threaten your assumptions. But I sure do wish you'd drop me a line in my journal and let me know who you are so I can foe you, so I never have to read your comments.

Re:Insurance threat is real.

[ufoolme]

Human genetics still a pretty young field, and my guess is by-and-large the majority of people's health insurance should go down if they know their own genetics. As most people are generally quite healthy (gene-wise), and genetics can be a style of preventive medicine. Of course that'll never happen, as insurance companies are allied with cubic satanism.

In any case this isn't a major issue - yet. As sequencing is still currently too expensive, but the price is in rapid decline. Our only hope against DNA insurance is that governments will legislate against such ideas, but I think an alien overlord invasion is more likely.

they don't make computer viruses like they used to

[Tablizer]

"Mom, there's a spleen growing out of the printer!"

History repeats?

[junkwerks]

Obviously DNA can have positive effects on medical issues. These people are putting their DNA on the web. So the question is, is this science or a political stunt? Here is an abstract from an article I found on PubMed. Can't help but draw a parallel: Eugenics and American social history, 1880-1950. Allen GE. Department of Biology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130. Eugenics, the attempt to improve the human species socially through better breeding was a widespread and popular movement in the United States and Europe between 1910 and 1940. Eugenics was an attempt to use science (the newly discovered Mendelian laws of heredity) to solve social problems (crime, alcoholism, prostitution, rebelliousness), using trained experts. Eugenics gained much support from progressive reform thinkers, who sought to plan social development using expert knowledge in both the social and natural sciences. In eugenics, progressive reformers saw the opportunity to attack social problems efficiently by treating the cause (bad heredity) rather than the effect. Much of the impetus for social and economic reform came from class conflict in the period 1880-1930, resulting from industrialization, unemployment, working conditions, periodic depressions, and unionization. In response, the industrialist class adopted firmer measures of economic control (abandonment of laissez-faire principles), the principles of government regulation (interstate commerce, labor), and the cult of industrial efficiency. Eugenics was only one aspect of progressive reform, but as a scientific claim to explain the cause of social problems, it was a particularly powerful weapon in the arsenal of class conflict at the time.

I reserve the Steven Pinker's gene..

[Anonymous Coward]

..for his long curly hair.

no, time to kill them

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the project is about getting rid of the preconception of privacy. I was thinking, What the fuck?
So now, ten people (actually a bit more) have been added to my list of people to kill when the revolution comes.

"Society" doesn't want to get rid of democracy, just make it undemocratic

Let's not forget who we are...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget that who we are is partly our DNA (color of our skin, eyes, hair...) and mostly our environment (height to a large extend, weight, values, feelings, etc, etc, etc). Having your DNA posted will NOT tell that you have a predisposition to pedophilia, substance abuse, and most of the diseases that are currently difficult to cure. The "one gene diseases" are GENERALLY easy to cure. On the other hand, knowing about a few genomes does help scientists (such as myself) understand what is important in a genome, how variations affect or not people, and discover new regulations among genes that are impossible to extract from one single genome (such that we have right now). Yes, there are issues with privacy but until we are able to understand fully the genome (which, by the way, we still are not able to do for most bacteria which is way shorter), we will not be able to infer much on a medical record basis from these genomes.

yeah there's nothing wrong with it

[circletimessquare]

i'm just saying the psychological motivations aren't necessarily pure

You must be new around here

[OhHellWithIt]

The very idea of posting actual information instead of paranoid FUD!

Anyway, thanks for posting it, as I didn't remember this one passing. Too many holes in my memory. (And yes, I did note that your UID is significantly lower than mine. ;-)

If they want my genetic sequence....

[Tetsujin]

If they want my genetic sequence, I offer them one simple solution:

Send me women. They'll probably have to send me more than one in order to make sure they get the whole thing...

Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had the chance, I'd do this in a heartbeat and GPL my own genetic code.

I don't understand the furor

[BLKMGK]

Frankly if it didn't cost a couple grand to participate I'd be doing it myself. As I recall they are not posting your name to the DNA sample and there are SOME protections in place but they cannot guarantee that someone won't figure out who you are. All results etc. are supposed to go back to the person who signed up for the project too. So that means that if someone finds something that you really ought to know about you will be notified.

Aside from the couple grand entrance fee and being willing to tell them about my family history etc. I do not see this as too onerous. In fact in the long run it might help others out so given a choice I'd sign up. I leave my DNA all over the place, I do not consider it to be too terribly private.

That said I do tend to protect my privacy in general but in this case the benefit to me and potentially to *others* would seem to be worthwhile particularly since there are some protections in place.