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

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: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: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.

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?

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: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

[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: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)

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

[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?