Slashdot Mirror


New Dating Sites Match People Through DNA Tests

The Installer writes with this excerpt from an Associated Press report: "A couple of genetic testing companies are promising to match couples based on DNA testing, touting the benefits of biological compatibility. The companies claim that a better biological match will mean better sex, less cheating, longer-lasting love and perhaps even healthier children. 'How many dating services can you think of where they can suggest you might have better children?' said Eric Holzle, founder of ScientificMatch.com, one of the first online dating sites to use DNA. ... The idea is that people tend to be attracted to those who have immune system genes that are dissimilar from their own. Biologists say the HLA genes of the immune system — which are responsible for recognizing and marking foreign cells such as viruses so other parts of the immune system can attack them — also determine body odor 'fingerprints.' And people tend to be attracted to the natural body odors of those who have different HLA genes from their own."

278 comments

  1. The company name is kind of disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Incest Is Best Inc"

    1. Re:The company name is kind of disturbing by Macrat · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Exactly. Maybe the hillbillies in the mountains of Tennessee have been right all these years to marry your cousin.

    2. Re:The company name is kind of disturbing by commodore64_love · · Score: 1, Informative

      What the heck are you talking about? Genetic compatibility means finding someone *opposite* to yourself. i.e. If you have a weakness in regards to poor eyesight, then you'd want somebody with keen eyesight so your baby will hopefully have keen eyesight too.

      You certainly wouldn't want to marry your family members, who'd have many of the same weaknesses you do.
      That would produce a kid who's nigh-blind.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:The company name is kind of disturbing by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 2, Informative

      The company name is actually Love Sciences, LLC

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    4. Re:The company name is kind of disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Incest Is Best Inc"

      A wholly owned subsidiary of "Put your Sister to the Test, LLP"?

    5. Re:The company name is kind of disturbing by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      If you have a weakness in regards to poor eyesight, then you'd want somebody with keen eyesight so your baby will hopefully have keen eyesight too.

      You have really bad sight, you missed the point completely.

      Because of the poor eyesight, nobody will want you, ever!

    6. Re:The company name is kind of disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marilyn Monroe suggests to Einstein: What do you say, professor, shouldn't we marry and have a little baby together: what a baby it would be - my looks and your intelligence!
      Einstein: I'm afraid, dear lady, it might be the other way around...

    7. Re:The company name is kind of disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and because of the fact that the idiot gp doesn't seem to get things too good - nobody will want him around here, evar!

    8. Re:The company name is kind of disturbing by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Incest Is Best Inc"

      Well, at least it's better than the company that uses exact matches, called "Go Fuck Yourself, Inc."

    9. Re:The company name is kind of disturbing by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean Dick Cheney's new company?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    10. Re:The company name is kind of disturbing by flyneye · · Score: 1

      It'll give rich clothing designers a side industry.
      Sergio Valente designer genes.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    11. Re:The company name is kind of disturbing by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Because of the poor eyesight, nobody will want you, ever!

      You insensitive clod!
      (runs off crying)
      ;-)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    12. Re:The company name is kind of disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well if was the near the same kind of DNA it would be a close realtive. Yuck

  2. Hey baby... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nice genes...

    1. Re:Hey baby... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I wish I were a DNA helicase so I could unzip your genes...

    2. Re:Hey baby... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > Nice genes...

      They're just a pair of old hand-me-downs from dad and mom.

      --
  3. Hmm... by shrtcircuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah... Submit your DNA profile to a for-profit corporation that lets you do things with it through a web interface. Your info will never be hacked. Your info will never be sold. Your info will never be given to government agencies. Trust us.

    What could possibly go wrong here?

    1. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who cares if people have your DNA info? What's it good for? They can't use it to take your money or anything, you tinfoil-hatter.

    2. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long have you been working for one of these places?

    3. Re:Hmm... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While the science is still in its infancy, there are already a fair few bits of genome that your insurance company would probably enjoy having a look at.

    4. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's okay, the corporations will keep you safe. CEOs are never corrupt!

    5. Re:Hmm... by MarkvW · · Score: 0, Troll

      But what about the idea that information MUST BE FREE? Your DNA structure is information. Shouldn't it be free to anybody who wants to download it? Maybe it should be up on the Pirate Bay!

      Or, is it that only Hollywood Movies, Britney Spears songs, and videogames are information that must be free?

    6. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's okay, the unions will keep you safe. Special interest groups are never corrupt!

    7. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd put my DNA online, if I ever had it sequenced. I'd even host the torrent! If people want to see what kinds of mutant creatures I would (hypothetically) produce upon breeding, I say let them have it.

    8. Re:Hmm... by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's OK, a democracy will keep you safe. The voters always make intelligent & informed decisions!

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    9. Re:Hmm... by Hope+Thelps · · Score: 1

      It's okay, Slashdot will keep you... ah, well anyway, if anything goes wrong then we'll be really outraged about it 6 months later.

      --
      To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
    10. Re:Hmm... by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >>>DNA info? What's it good for?

      Watch the movie GATTACA where people were denied jobs (or vice-versa promoted) strictly based upon their DNA. The ability for bosses, politicians, whoever to just look at your "program code" and filter for the best candidate is dangerous. It takes away opportunity who may be slightly dumber, but with more determination and focus to get the job done. (Again I recommend watching gattaca... one of the best science movies of the last two decades.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    11. Re:Hmm... by maxume · · Score: 1

      So what? It isn't as if some big chunk of the population is actually genetically superior to the rest, insurance companies would have to be willing to do business with some people with 'bad' genes, and really, it isn't just the companies profits that benefit from better customer screening, their customers do too.

      (To add some context, I would be fine with the United States instituting some sort of socialized coverage for conditions that are not insurable, the current system where those people get coverage as long as they win the employment lottery isn't any better...)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:Hmm... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Information is only free if you decide to give it away (i.e. hand someone a copy of your sheetmusic for you just-created song). NOBODY has a right to take it from you through force. If you want to give-away you DNA code, go ahead, but you should also have the right to keep it secret.

      See the science movie Gattaca on the dangers of releasing your DNA to the wild.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    13. Re:Hmm... by Threni · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, Gattaca is a boring film. There's scope for a genuinely good film which tackles the same/similar issues.

    14. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Science movie? Science Fiction I'll grant you, even Sci-Fi (though never SyFy), but come on, let's not pretend there is real science in it.

    15. Re:Hmm... by ikegami · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But what about the idea that information MUST BE FREE?

      Information wants to be free. The claims refers to any and all of the following facts:

      • When information is shared, the sharer loses none of the information.

      • The cost of sharing information information is next to nil if not nil. It is an infinite good. In a free market, it's price WILL go down to zero (regardless of whether you think it SHOULD or not).

      • Information sharing almost always benefits society.

      But must information be free? No, not always. There is value in privacy, for example. So while your DNA information "wants to be free" doesn't mean you should "let it free".

      -----

      You might be wondering how there can exist privacy if information wants to be free.

      Notice that I said the cost of information will drop to nothing in a free market. Privacy can exist by hindering the market for information deemed private. One means of achieving this is through the creation of laws that (artifically) raise the cost of the information (by imposing penalities for inappropriately sharing and using the information).

      Unfortunately, the legal landscape has not yet dealt with DNA sharing in any serious manner. For now, all you can do is hide your DNA. Once it's known by someone else, it's outside your control.

    16. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, humor detection fail, there.

      Also, for the record? "Proof by I-saw-it-in-this-movie-once" isn't really proof. Scifi can point to dangers, but by their nature they overblow them almost every time.

    17. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      indeed, I have distributed quite a lot of copies of my DNA...hairbrush, clothes, pillows, and even quite a quantity of kleenex...(just half copies this time though)

    18. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Spoken like someone who wouldn't be affected by this decision.

      There may not be be any genetically superior people, but there are plenty of people with severe deficiencies.

      Insurance companies win the bet most of the time. If they want to cut their losses by knowing the order of the entire deck I say they get f8ckd.

    19. Re:Hmm... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you're male or female so - let's suppose that science identifies a gene, or even a pair of genes, that make you susceptible to either prostate cancer, or breast cancer. Take your pick - it doesn't matter which.

      Your DNA profile shows you to be susceptible to whichever. Let's say that you're 50 times more likely to develop that cancer, than the "average" person. You are now uninsurable, unless you accept a "prior condition" waiver.

      You better hope that "socialized health care" is made real.

      It's alright for the insurance companies to stack the deck so that they win most of the time, but there comes a point where hedging their bets is outright unethical.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    20. Re:Hmm... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Ask someone outside your basement.
      Someone who lived under a CIA or KGB backed dictatorship or who got sorted by IBM in the 1940's.
      The early 20C eugenics movement had a set back in the 1940's and re branded itself under the genome and environmental movements.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otmar_Freiherr_von_Verschuer
      Anonymous screening for Tay-Sachs?
      What could this this data do long term?
      Bought out and sold up to some 'too big to fail' defence contractor who just happens to own your local health insurance brand?
      Dont forget, the US health insurance pools patient databases (rejected troublemakers types), so shopping around wont save you.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    21. Re:Hmm... by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There really isn't anything unethical about offering a specific service at a given price. Part of not wanting to insure people at risk for cancer just means that you don't want to take their money, not that you are trying to rip them off (that insurance companies can operate profitably today without genetic information indicates that they can probably serve people that they know are genetically predisposed, and if they can't, why should we limit the subsidy pool to their customer pool?).

      Inserting all sorts of weird government mandates into what sorts of information insurance companies are allowed to use just ends up with a situation like we have today, where they barely operate as insurance companies and instead operate as socialized medicine providers for small (compared to society at large) groups of people. Basically, it's great to work at a big corporation, because there are lots of people there to help pay for your medical expenses, but if you don't, go die in the street (see, this is the part where I do think the wealthiest society to exist on earth should probably go ahead and try to mitigate the consequences of bad medical luck, I just think that regulating insurance companies is a bad way to do it).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    22. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You realize that the difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy is that SciFi is based on facts, and 'entirely' plausible, right?

      We can test DNA and do the whole gene sequencing thing, just because right now we can't decode all of them doesn't mean we won't always.

      Nature vs Nurture--yes, this doesn't take that into account, which is one of the major things that movie seeks to encourage us to explore.

    23. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ability for bosses, politicians, whoever to just look at your "program code" and filter for the best candidate is dangerous.

      Yep, just like the Meyers-Briggs test.

      The stated intent was to be a way of mixing various talents and temperaments to build teams which would work well together, making use of the best each member had to offer.

      What a crock -- it's just a way to hire group-thinkers who have no diversity of thought.

    24. Re:Hmm... by khedron+the+jester · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree that it's not a science movie, but for different reasons: the moral I got from the film is that you can't sum up the whole of a human being by his genes, but that his will plays a part too.

      Hence (IMO) it's an anti-science film, since it tries to show the shortcomings of science and the problems of over-reliance on it.

    25. Re:Hmm... by gilleain · · Score: 1

      Watch the movie GATTACA...

      What, the same movie where people get printouts of their DNA and it covers a few pages, not several crates of phonebooks? Yes, ultra-realistic, wasn't it? Perhaps it contained only snips, or just a list of mutated bases : "Base 10,123 on your X chromosome is A instead of T. Base 15,742 is a C instead of..."

    26. Re:Hmm... by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your info will never be given to government agencies.

      If the government wants to get into the match-making industry, more power to 'em!

      Seriously, do you really think that anybody cares about your DNA information that much as to hack into this site? There's really nothing that your DNA can be used for that criminals or the government would even want it for at this point. You can't even perform identity theft with it! Is there really a large black market for this information? If someone really wanted your DNA, I'm sure they could get a good sample by going through your trash or other means. If the government starts collecting DNA from everybody, do you really think they're gonna go through a dating service as opposed to actually getting it from your doctor or from mandatory screenings? If we come to that point, you've already got bigger problems than this site giving up your information. So really, what could possibly go wrong here other than you going on a couple of crappy dates because DNA might not be a viable matchmaking opportunity?

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    27. Re:Hmm... by HBoar · · Score: 1

      Exactly. In addition, how much is it going to cost governments/insurance companies to actually analyse all this data? I'm no DNA expert, but I don't think it's the kind of thing that fits on a two sided A4 page! More like thousands and thousands of pages. And for what benefit? So as an insurance company can charge 'better' people slightly lower premiums to undercut their competitors? I very much doubt it would be even close to worth the cost. And if it were, whats the problem? There will still be insurance available to even the most horribly mutated people, just at a higher premium. This is no less fair than car insurance companies charging young drivers more.

    28. Re:Hmm... by halcyon1234 · · Score: 4, Funny

      So... my DNA is information... and information wants to be freely shared and spread around?

      I think I've seen websites that have videos of that...

      ...

      They weren't free, though.

    29. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you, but paying $1,995.95 for the privilege of submitting my DNA profile to a dating service seems kinda iffy. What happened to the dating sites that are free to the ladies and make men take it up the ass to show their desperation?

    30. Re:Hmm... by epr · · Score: 1

      Maybe they used a really small font size?

    31. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DNA doesn't even work that way. All it does is sets the probabilities for specific proteins to be produced - you can carry a gene and never express it. There is also a massive environmental influence - someone can have the potential to be very good at math, but they won't be if they never work to master it.

    32. Re:Hmm... by Handlarn · · Score: 1

      It's OK, the media will inform the voters. The media always report the unbiased truth!

    33. Re:Hmm... by radtea · · Score: 1

      The ability for bosses, politicians, whoever to just look at your "program code" and filter for the best candidate is dangerous

      But in a free market that'll mean that companies that don't do such stupid things will out-compete the ones who do, right? Unless of course actual performance is really just an unpredictable crap-shoot!

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    34. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... one of the best science movies of the last two decades.)

      Even more than Matrix? I think Matrix is the best science movie of the last decades...

    35. Re:Hmm... by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      Isn't this movie about the guy who fakes his genetic id and still does stuff that was supposedly meant to be done with somebody with better genetic material than his?

    36. Re:Hmm... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      The underlying problem is that advances in risk forecasting actually attack the risk-pooling function of insurance.

      If risk were known perfectly, "insurance" would either not exist, or function essentially as a line of credit, since all costs would be known for each individual. If risks are completely unknown, "insurance" would basically mean chopping up all customers' bills and dividing them equally between all the customers. Intermediate amounts of risk knowledge lead to various intermediate results.

      It basically comes down to what we want insurance to actually do. If we want risk pooling, the more we learn about risk prediction, the less actual risk pooling free market insurance companies will deliver. In the long run, the only way to get any useful amount of risk pooling will be to legally compel the existence of risk pooling. If, of course, we don't actually care about risk pooling, we don't have to do anything, other than watch it ebb away.

    37. Re:Hmm... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Well, my understanding of current genetic indicators is that they are merely predictive, not deterministic, so risk pooling should still work just fine.

      The pie in the sky way to think about it is that advanced genetics research leads to treatments faster than it takes away risk pooling, so use of such information should probably be encouraged (and hopefully those treatments also get cheaper, but that is a tough argument lately). And to me, at some point, if the idea is to share costs, creating artificially information-limited pools doesn't seem like the right way to be doing it (and I can't think of any reason beyond cost sharing to create the artificially limited pools).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    38. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Too bad they never made any sequels.

    39. Re:Hmm... by daveime · · Score: 1

      Look, it's perfectly simple.

      If health insurance companies follow this tack, they'll end up with 2 groups of people.

      1) Those with "super" genes, who are so low risk they won't need insurance, as nothing serious will ever happen to them, medically speaking.

      2) Those with "crappy" genes, who the insurance companies won't want to cover, or will make the premiums so high, people can't afford them anyway.

      So who is left to insure, genius ?

      We'll end up with no "generic" health care for anyone, only accident insurance (unforseen bus accidents etc) for group 1, and private savings plans (saving for the inevitable kind of thing) for group 2.

      Insurance companies will go out of business. Maybe not such a bad thing.

    40. Re:Hmm... by daveime · · Score: 1

      If they were happy taking it up the ass, then there'd be no sense in looking for a lady (except perhaps to wash clothes and cook meals). Problem solved.

    41. Re:Hmm... by kheldan · · Score: 1

      You beat me to the reference. I too believe this could be a dangerous idea, but not just for the obvious reason: I don't see where we know enough about our own genome yet to be able to make judgement calls of this sort based on it. In other words, sounds like more new-age quackery to me.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    42. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Watch the movie GATTACA where people were denied jobs (or vice-versa promoted) strictly based upon their DNA. The ability for bosses, politicians, whoever to just look at your "program code" and filter for the best candidate is dangerous. It takes away opportunity who may be slightly dumber, but with more determination and focus to get the job done. (Again I recommend watching gattaca... one of the best science movies of the last two decades.)

      Although, this assumes that there isn't a corresponding gene for hard work that could be located!

    43. Re:Hmm... by peater · · Score: 1

      It's OK, when the shit finally hits the fan, you'll can come here and re-read my "I told you so" rant. PS: I told you so.

    44. Re:Hmm... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Who cares if people have your DNA info? What's it good for? They can't use it to take your money or anything, you tinfoil-hatter.

      Today? Probably nothing. Give it 100 years and I imagine it will be very possible to tailor a nasty virus to infect you and only you, based on your DNA. And once it can be done in a federal lab for millions, add 20 years and it'll be doable with a home PC and a few vials, and add 10 more years and you could probably do it on your cell phone. The future is a scary, scary place.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    45. Re:Hmm... by lena_10326 · · Score: 0

      What, the same movie where people get printouts of their DNA and it covers a few pages, not several crates of phonebooks? Yes, ultra-realistic, wasn't it? Perhaps

      All you'd need is the deltas from the common baseline, which is a fraction of a percent of the whole.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    46. Re:Hmm... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      This post contains potential spoilers, so stop reading if you haven't seen Gattaca...

      I liked the premise of the film, but thought the execution was quite poor. He wasn't just genetically inferior (whatever that means) he was physically inferior. He needed a machine that faked his heard rhythm for the monitors when he was on the treadmill. From this exertion, his heart rate was incredibly high. This test wasn't just about determining whether he had the right genes, it was about determining whether his body could stand up to the stresses of space travel and he had to cheat. I was expecting the film to end with him dying during takeoff from massive heart failure and then the rest of the crew dying because they needed him to help fly the ship.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    47. Re:Hmm... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      It's still call it science fiction, or a science movie, of the best kind. It's one thing to use a scientific plot device, another to really get to grips with the philosophy and morality of science.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    48. Re:Hmm... by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      Begun, the Clone War has.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    49. Re:Hmm... by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      If the government wants to get into the match-making industry, more power to 'em!

      Yeah, I think "more power" is exactly what was intended the last time a government wanted to get into the match-making industry.

      OK, we can officially declare this discussion closed now.

    50. Re:Hmm... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>let's not pretend there is real science in it.

      Uh. No need to pretend. Gattaca *does* have real science in it. It's based-upon using DNA to match men-women as partners, and also to fertilize many eggs and pick "the best" genetically-speaking. That's real science. I challenge you to explain how that is not real.

      Now if you were discussing Star Trek or Stargate, then I agree that's scifi. In fact I'd go further and call if Futuristic Fantasy.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    51. Re:Hmm... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Hence (IMO) it's an anti-science film, since it tries to show the shortcomings of science and the problems of over-reliance on it.

      I agree. That doesn't necessarily mean it's anti-science though. Was Einstein anti-science when he said, "Newton got it wrong"? No he was just pointing-out that Newton did not yet comprehend the world in its entirety. Ditto whoever wrote Gattaca.

      I think the point is that you can't define a human being's actions *just* by DNA, anymore than you can predict a computer's actions simply be looking at the installed program code. One piece of code might work on your PC, but not my PC. Likewise one human might have great DNA, but he can still fail due to his brain not being motivated (i.e. he's lazy).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    52. Re:Hmm... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      He had heart arhythmia. Lots of astronauts have had poor hearts, but still gone into space, and the fact he was able to pass the tests without dying indicates to me the tests were bogus. (Kinda like the requirement you have to carry a 4-year-degree to get hired as a Computer Engineer.) He passed all the other exams with flying colors, and with no need to cheat.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    53. Re:Hmm... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I printed the entire Harry Potter 7 book in just ~50 pages. I used the 9 pages per page setting.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    54. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...you can't sum up the whole of a human being by his genes, but that his will plays a part too.

      This seems like a false dichotomy to me. You can argue that a human being is a result not just of their genes, but of their environment as well, and be completely right. And you can argue that you need to understand someone's will as well as their raw abilities in order to know how well they will perform in a particular role. But to present it as a dichotomy between genes and will seems curiously naive to me - it's as if the authors wanted to believe that intangible mental attributes couldn't possibly be affected by something as mundane as genes.

      Even aside from that, it should be blindingly obvious that (1) knowing someone's genes allows you to make some predictions about what they're able to do, and (2) that if you have a bad methodology for doing this, you're going to make bad predictions. Since the movie seems to argue against genetic technologies in general by making a strawman out of point (2), I think that I need to chalk it up as yet another popular criticism of science without really understanding it - not quite in the same league as creationism, but in the same genre.

    55. Re:Hmm... by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I believe Pres. Bush signed a law that prohibits insurance companies from utilizing genetic information to make decisions about coverage or premiums. However, (a) that only lasts until government-run healthcare decides that your clotting disorder gene is a drain on the system; and (b) insurance companies profit off of loopholes, so you can bet that this one won't take them long to get past.

    56. Re:Hmm... by tenco · · Score: 1

      Leaving some of your DNA at crime scenes comes to mind. DNA already can be fabricated from it's description without using a sample.

    57. Re:Hmm... by balaband · · Score: 1

      You know, those are really nice kidneys you got there...

  4. Bias Filtering by decipher_saint · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's bad enough that I'm legally blind but now I can add it to the list of attributes that might reduce my chances of procreating (as if analyst and programmer weren't bad enough).

    Enjoy your gene pool, jerkwads!

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
    1. Re:Bias Filtering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enjoy your gene pool, jerkwads!

      I see what you did there.

      (It's a refence to masturbation and semen, right?)

    2. Re:Bias Filtering by JeffSpudrinski · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It's been mentioned already, but this is creepily close to GATTACA for my tastes.

      Why is it that the creepy sci-fi is what becomes a reality?

    3. Re:Bias Filtering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      So you're an analrammer?

    4. Re:Bias Filtering by andy1307 · · Score: 1

      as if analyst

      If you're doing it anally, your chances of procreation are not very high.

    5. Re:Bias Filtering by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      That your legally blind increases the chance of some women of procreating, much in the way that beer does.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    6. Re:Bias Filtering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also have a genetic low-vision condition I am trying to breed out of the family gene pool. i enjoy the process but so far all i got is a few could be screwed munchkins...perhaps this service can help me select a mate with a more dominant trait?

  5. Offspring by rossdee · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Sounds like a way to 'improve' the genetic makeup of the children. The nazis would have loved the idea
     

    1. Re:Offspring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Godwin's Law already???

      Actually at the time of the Nazis, most of the western world was quite heavily interested in eugenics. It's not just a Nazi thing, it was most of Europe and North America as well. Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with it, why would improving the genes of the human race be considered a bad thing?

      It's the association with Nazi Germany which put the whole idea into disrepute, but if you're not forcing people to procreate with a good match, just encouraging it, what is wrong with that? After all, a lot of the music industry encourages us to get as many "hos" as possible, and the film industry seems to be trying to get us to fall in love as quickly as possible, what's wrong with something that would actually BENEFIT us?

    2. Re:Offspring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Indeed - Wikipedia states that the US was one of the first countries to start sterilizing "undesirables", all the way back in 1907. Heck, Oregon had a Eugenics board until 1983...

    3. Re:Offspring by jcr · · Score: 1, Informative

      Eugenics is the dirty little secret of the "progressive" movement.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:Offspring by Macrat · · Score: 1

      Indeed - Wikipedia states that the US was one of the first countries to start sterilizing "undesirables", all the way back in 1907. Heck, Oregon had a Eugenics board until 1983...

      Getting rid of "undesirables" has been around long before the US even existed.

    5. Re:Offspring by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed, but even the Spartans tried to select for some sort of meaningful attribute, as opposed to "poor", "Catholic", "black" and so on.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Offspring by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      Tinfoil hat fitting you all right?

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    7. Re:Offspring by jcr · · Score: 1

      Tinfoil hat fitting you all right?

      If you think I'm making it up, do a bit of historical research. Eugenics was part and parcel of the puritan impulse that was behind the temperance movement, and any number of other impulses to use the power of the state to make "better" people.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    8. Re:Offspring by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1
      TFA:

      The idea is that people tend to be attracted to those who have immune system genes that are dissimilar from their own.

      It's likely that a white person could be paired with a black person using this service. It wouldn't be traditional eugenics, but I always did want an engineer son who also played in the NFL - I wouldn't have to work another day in my life! $$$ Also, I have jungle fever.

    9. Re:Offspring by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Eugenics, in a way, is just humans consciously doing what they'd do anyway. People tend to pick partners that they think would make good off-spring. That is why they can be attracted to prettier, smarter and stronger people. No one really wants to make kids with a fat doofus.

      This is true even with trailer trash but it just doesn't look like it because they're at the bottom and what they consider a good pick isn't to most people.

      Everyone wants their genes to dominate. Eugenics is just enhancing evolution and stopping the bottom feeders from tainting the gene pool.

      That said, people generally screw up everything eventually and that would likely happen with Eugenics and future generations will just end up inbred.

    10. Re:Offspring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm aware of this, but I don't tag it as progressive particularly - Christian, perhaps like the temperance movement.

      Eugenics, in one form or another has been practiced worldwide for most of human history. We call it "infanticide" and it was usually practiced when a deformed child was born.

      We get something like eugenics, like it or not, when technology advances a bit. When it's possible to screen an egg and sperm for genetic problems, and add (for a probably not so modest fee), other features you'd like (e.g. enhanced intelligence, strength, etc.), it will happen. Perhaps not in the USA, at first, but it will happen. The wealthy will not let their children's life be random if they can help it.

    11. Re:Offspring by jcr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm aware of this, but I don't tag it as progressive particularly

      "Progressivism" is just one of the names for the obnoxious habit of wanting to force other people to do your bidding. That particular term arose in the aftermath of the civil war, and was the rallying cry for scumbags like Woodrow Wilson and their sycophants.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    12. Re:Offspring by jcr · · Score: 1

      Eugenics, in a way, is just humans consciously doing what they'd do anyway

      No. Eugenics is meddling in other people's decisions as to whether and with whom to have children. It is racist, it is authoritarian, and it is evil. It started with illegal mutilation of "undesirable" women through forcible sterilzation in the United States and other countries, and culminated in the holocaust. If you're not just trolling, and you're seriously advocating eugenics, then you are a sad excuse for a human being.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    13. Re:Offspring by mlyle · · Score: 1

      jcr-- I see your posts often and generally find them well reasoned, but I really hate absolutes like this.

      There's a lot of potential good that can happen from deliberate changes to how we select mates. It's a question of where those mechanisms are implemented (individual choice, social pressure, or governmental coercion), how forceful those mechanisms are, and the potential gains to be realized.

      From wikipedia:

      Mate selection. In Orthodox Jewish circles, the organization Dor Yeshorim carries out an anonymous screening program so that couples who are likely to conceive a child with Tay-Sachs or another genetic disorder can avoid marriage.[27] Nomi Stone of Dartmouth College describes this approach. "Orthodox Jewish high school students are given blood tests to determine if they have the Tay-Sachs gene. Instead of receiving direct results as to their carrier status, each person is given a six-digit identification number. Couples can call a hotline, if both are carriers, they will be deemed 'incompatible.' Individuals are not told they are carriers directly to avoid any possibility of stigmatization or discrimination. If the information were released, carriers could potentially become unmarriageable within the community.

      This is definitely a mechanism rooted in eugenics, and it's not free of coercion (there's a fair bit of social pressure). But it has meant that Tay Sachs has transformed from a "Jewish disease" to something nearly unknown in the Jewish community. It's also an elegant mechanism that was chosen that largely prevents stigmatization of those with the problematic alleles.

      Similarly, the huge downtick in the incidence of Downs has had outside influence (e.g. social and medical standards about chromosomal testing, various government-funded testing programs, etc). I understand this could be controversial depending on your take on the abortion issue.

      As with anything, taken to extremes it can be bad, but there have been gains realized with minimal costs to individuals.

    14. Re:Offspring by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      "Eugenics" is often used to describe hypothetical "designer babies", i.e. the voluntary improvement/selection of embryos' genes. Whether this is a slippery slope into the compulsory "improvement" you refer to we shall see soon enough.

    15. Re:Offspring by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a lot of potential good that can happen from deliberate changes to how we select mates.

      The key word is "we". WE choose, not anyone else. If you're talking about individuals picking and choosing their spouses, that's their own business. Once you move from that to outside forces choosing for them, it's evil.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    16. Re:Offspring by jcr · · Score: 1, Informative

      they're tired of every right wing Christian conservative family having half a dozen kids, then expecting everyone else to pay for their education.

      You're getting your stereotypes mixed up. The pinko line against the right wing conservative christians is to rail against them for home-schooling their kids, and rejecting the benevolent indoctrination that their enlightened masters in government want to subject them to.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    17. Re:Offspring by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      True but at the same time it's probably for the best that most babies with Downs, in the UK at least, are terminated. Killing off you "bad" babies until you get it right sounds bad if you word it like that but honestly most people probably won't take care of the child right so it is for the best.

      In the end though if people are given free reign to do what they want they will fuck it up in some way.

    18. Re:Offspring by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      It's racist if you take it to believe that races shouldn't mix and it's only authoritarian if it's forced on people. Assuming what the Nazis believed is correct is just being silly.

      Eugenics is basically used to this day via the abortion of retarded babies. It's not forced on them and in fact some opt to have the child but the vast majority don't.

      Is it evil to admit to yourself that you're not prepared to take care of a retarded baby and therefore kill it rather than letting it lead a horrible life?

    19. Re:Offspring by Merpy · · Score: 1

      awesome. :)

    20. Re:Offspring by mlyle · · Score: 1

      What about social pressure? Because it's clear social pressure has a role in the mechanisms I cited. You don't approach universal compliance with a genetic testing program (like has happened with the Ashkenazis) without SOME amount of pressure.

      I think we can agree that full-on coercion is bad-- the question is where the line is. Clearly, when governments are providing services to test for chromosomal disorders or for autosomal recessive disorders, the result is a eugenics program. And I think those services are mostly good things, especially in the present environment where government is the payer of last resort for health care services.

    21. Re:Offspring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think I'm making it up, do a bit of historical research. Eugenics was part and parcel of the puritan impulse that was behind the temperance movement, and any number of other impulses to use the power of the state to make "better" people.

      Yep, and now we have all the PC and demonization campaigns -- smoking, fast food, trans fats, Oscar the Grouch living in a compost bin instead of a garbage can, Cookie Monster supplementing his normal diet with "veggies".

      Have you noticed that only yuppie health asshole control freaks call them "veggies". How motherfucking sweet.

    22. Re:Offspring by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Stay classy, jcr.

    23. Re:Offspring by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Provide one example that actually has any basis in fact? Right wing Christians have been trying to force their "moral values" on all of us for years. Progressives generally leave people to do what they want. Funny to me that conservatives tend to say they're for "small government"... unless the government happens to be in your bedroom, eh?

      I really shouldn't be feeding the troll, should I?

    24. Re:Offspring by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

      Well, nobody but the parents chose in GATTACA. I think it was probably evil.

      Sexual selection is primitive eugenics. However tastes in mates have been subject to the evolutionary reality check over time. Bad taste in mates was and is penalized. There is no reason why people or peacocks should prefer one thing over another other than that those who prefer the 'wrong' thing are penalized. Biases towards correct preferences are preserved in genes. And what's bad taste today might be good taste tomorrow.

      We probably aren't smart enough to predict future gene fashion trends well enough to profit our own genes. We might see that there is demand for long attention span or tallness currently and so sexually select those traits for our children ( and scifi in-vitro sexual selection of sperm/eggs is still sexual selection - you are in effect only breeding with those aspects of your partner that you find desirable )

      However there is no guarantee that trait X will continue to be in demand into the future. Imagine if people had bred themselves to be able to be great office workers by breeding in the ability to do arithmetic in their heads at the expense of some other mental characteristic, and then the calculator/computer were invented? These people's skill would be obsolete. Maybe a left hand shaped like a mallet would be really useful, but when someone invents a mallet, the mallet shaped hand becomes less useful than the more versitile version with fingers.

      Maybe the mental calculator device doesn't require sacrificing any trait, but weighs 5 grams in brain material requiring a slightly larger skull. How many 5 gram extra devices do you want your body carrying, encoded into your very genes?

      Nowadays people might select for something that is completely doomed to die in the environment of only a few hundred years from now. With the pace at which people alter their environment it seems almost certain. I imagine that companies like this will find the human equivalent of Cornish Chickens and convince them to cross themselves with the human equivalent of White Rock chickens to make ridiculous human equivalents of Broiler chickens with very 'desirable' traits, perfectly suited to their intended factory farm lifestyle ( a great niche in high demand *currently* ). But when economic forces close the factory the ridiculous Broiler chicken offspring so choice for their short lived intended niche won't be able to cope with the new realities they face. No longer wild chickens, they are doomed.

      Although if there are no wild spaces for wild chickens, maybe the wild type chicken is likewise doomed.

      Will the genetic fashion mavens who's genes flock to new man-made niches drive the old standard model human to extinction, or will those niches disappear before the versitile old model person fades completely away, and will that model be better able to take advantage of the latest niche? Or will it be some of both?

      Time will tell.

      --
      ...
    25. Re:Offspring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as the rest of us are required to subsidise their offspring, surely we have a stake, and a moral right to some input into the process. So anyone can have children with anyone they like - but if they want their children to receive free schooling, their mating choices are restricted.

    26. Re:Offspring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let me see if I've understood this:

      For the survival of the human race, we must all mate with as many different chickens as possible? But I've been already doing that for years...

    27. Re:Offspring by Yamata+no+Orochi · · Score: 1

      I was really enjoying your earlier posts on this subject, but the last few I've read have been tainted with the crazy.

      Calm down.

    28. Re:Offspring by jcr · · Score: 1

      As long as the rest of us are required to subsidise their offspring surely we have a stake, and a moral right to some input into the process.

      That's just one of the reasons why it's evil to force people to subsidize other people's offspring.

      There's a word for someone who lives in total dependence, and that word is not "free".

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    29. Re:Offspring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Starships have been powered with the sexual energy of chickens.

    30. Re:Offspring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, Oregon had a Eugenics board until 1983...

      You can tell how successful it was just by driving through the state.

    31. Re:Offspring by jcr · · Score: 1

      Oh, right. It must be crazy to oppose the idea of the government deciding who's good enough to live or die, or be born in the first place. FUCK YOU.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  6. So they Suck your Dick first???? PERFECT! by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1, Funny

    DNA EXCHANGED!

    1. Re:So they Suck your Dick first???? PERFECT! by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

      Truly a poet

    2. Re:So they Suck your Dick first???? PERFECT! by Tiger4 · · Score: 1

      Most of us don't worry about that kind of DNA sampling.

      --
      Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
    3. Re:So they Suck your Dick first???? PERFECT! by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now *that's* marketing!

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    4. Re:So they Suck your Dick first???? PERFECT! by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      It's not a poem. Its comedy. Why so serious batman?

    5. Re:So they Suck your Dick first???? PERFECT! by Yamata+no+Orochi · · Score: 1

      Troll? It's a joke. It may be a little tasteless for the tightwads around here, but it's still just a joke.

      People have no idea what a troll is.

  7. Gattaca, here we come! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    That reminds me, I need to buy a keyboard vacuum..

  8. oh and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's only $1,995 for a lifetime membership! they take credit cards!

    1. Re:oh and by umghhh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      why would anyone want a lifetime membership if the company were successful?

    2. Re:oh and by Zone-MR · · Score: 1

      Because a lifetime supply of daily recommendations of girls selected to be biologically compatible for amazing sex seems fucking awesome, of course.

    3. Re:oh and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word: "harem"

  9. Untrue by Mikkeles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'The companies claim that a better biological match will mean better sex, less cheating, longer-lasting love and perhaps even healthier children.'

    They're lying.

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    1. Re:Untrue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Consider the "perfect" biological match that has some sort of schizophrenic personality disorder or something.

      Of course maybe that says something about you... Maybe your perfect biological match is an abusive bastard and that's why you're continuously attracted to them even though they wreck your life.

    2. Re:Untrue by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      What's funny is that the only remotely possible claim is "healthier children".

      And it's easier to do a family medical history than to run the
      stack of gene tests which would give you the same information.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:Untrue by tonycheese · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, the idea behind this company is that people tend to be attracted to people who have different immune system and proteins from them, something that apparently we can tell by smell. The biological reason for this is that our children will be healthier, literally, and everything is just a side-effect from our bodies.

    4. Re:Untrue by tonycheese · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here, Discovery Channel did an article focusing on Scientific Match and another company doing the same thing that talks more about the science behind it. But, like the Komo News article, it points out that it's not very likely to work with such a small sample size of both people and genes.

    5. Re:Untrue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's funny is that the only remotely possible claim is "healthier children".

      What's funnier is that genetic diversity leads to healthy children, not genetic similarity.

      There is a reason why mixed babies are so damn attractive, and why you aren't supposed to marry your cousin.

    6. Re:Untrue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd just be curious to see how correct they are about their theory.

      "All your matches will activate your animal instinct to rape your mate, which they will enjoy, be exceptionally loyal to you and vice versa, and yield to healthy offspring."

      hrmmm....

    7. Re:Untrue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between lying and being wrong.

    8. Re:Untrue by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The thing is, it sounds like they're just talking about maximizing the difference, and that's probably no where near optimal. I think that I read that the optimal level is somewhere around third or fourth cousin.

      I.e., if you're too similar, then you don't have enough HLA difference, but if you're too divergent then there's a likelihood of incompatibilities. So you want to be optimally different.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re:Untrue by ultranova · · Score: 1

      No, the idea behind this company is that people tend to be attracted to people who have different immune system and proteins from them, something that apparently we can tell by smell. The biological reason for this is that our children will be healthier, literally, and everything is just a side-effect from our bodies.

      Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to just pick your mate from a social gathering where you can actually smell them than to send your genetic profile to some website?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    10. Re:Untrue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Discovery Channel did an article focusing on Scientific Match and another company doing the same thing that talks more about the science behind it.

      It is not unheard of, or even uncommon, for a company that is selling something to promote it through well-known media channels. How often does the media get flooded with a new buzzword 6-12 months before a movie comes out on the topic? Even Slashdot was flooded with articles about the salinity of the North Atlantic Current shortly before The Day After Tomorrow premiered. I would not be at all surprised if the Discovery Channel article and this dating site are related.

    11. Re:Untrue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I volunteer to test the first claim!!

    12. Re:Untrue by EspressoFreak · · Score: 1

      They're lying.

      It's tactful advertising.

    13. Re:Untrue by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      "Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to just pick your mate from a social gathering where you can actually smell them than to send your genetic profile to some website?"

      Yeah, so let me know when you work out how to do that via internet.

    14. Re:Untrue by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Match by DNA to match by physical appearance is the same as looking at binary code of a JPEG file to a picture that this JPEG file contains.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  10. Wait wait... by Manip · · Score: 1

    I see a HUGE hole in this plan... So we can take DNA and build an incomplete profile of it. They want to use these limited profiles to match people for dating.

    But what metric are they going to use to match people?

    If they plan to match similar DNA then I question that since studies have shown that we're attracted to people with different immune systems.

    If they plan to match people with very different DNA then I question that because there might be a huge culture clash.

    If they plan to match people with very similar but slightly different DNA then how is that better than hobbies and or interests?

    1. Re:Wait wait... by RJFerret · · Score: 2, Informative

      From TFA...

      The idea is that people tend to be attracted to those who have immune system genes that are dissimilar from their own.

      Which has been correlated to body odor, I remember from past studies (or a past study), and was referenced in TFA.

      But it's a well balanced article, they poke holes in it and share the 'just a money making ploy' contrary side of researchers who found happily married couples with similar immune systems instead of complementary.

      In similar news, I'm starting a match making service based upon environmental chemical exposures.

    2. Re:Wait wait... by MaXintosh · · Score: 1

      contrary side of researchers who found happily married couples with similar immune systems instead of complementary

      In any system there's going to be some variance. Sometimes, female birds of paradise don't choose the male with the most elaborate tail; sometimes they choose the ratty, haggard male. That's not to say that the tail is useless in attracting mates. It's the `average behaviour` we're interested in, and several studies have shown that on average, humans (and dozens of other species as far removed as sticklebacks) mate disassortatively with respect to their MHC type.

    3. Re:Wait wait... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      If they did they usual personality matching, then filtered those matches (usually hundreds) through genetic testing (to detect different immune classes; a supposed basis for pheromone attraction), it might be useful.

    4. Re:Wait wait... by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but we all know that those female birds are really dikes picking out the nancy boy birds. Just like the females picking those with similar immune systems are just doped up on birth control pills and you know she'll cheat on you once she has to stop the birth control because you guys are trying to conceive, which will take forever because her body will constantly miscarry as more attractive mates pass by that her body can now recognize because it's not doped up on synthetic hormones.
      Ok, so maybe that's not all true, i have no idea about the birds, but all the human stuff is backed up by scientific evidence.

    5. Re:Wait wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, hypothetically, if someone were to get a job there, or just hack in, they could rig results to set themselves up as a perfect match for every hot chick that walked in the door? Slashdot competition!

  11. great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    where do i send my load so i can become part of this dna dating website. usually i just send it onto the ceiling, but now i hope i can send it somewhere useful.

  12. So much bunk? by Quantos · · Score: 1

    That's like saying that your best match is someone who drinks the same brand of beer that you do.
    People are best matched with other people that they can get along with and talk to, we all know this. Just because the DNA profile is similar doesn't mean that they will enjoy the same things. It's life experiences and how we respond and come through them that make us what we are.

    They would be better off saying that they will match you with people who have a similar upraising. Even that raises flags though. Matching two people based on addictive or abused pasts would usually not be good for their children.

    Face it, we are far better off just finding our own mates and leaving the corporations out of it.

    --
    Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
    1. Re:So much bunk? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      To some extent, however people of a similar genetic make up are much more likely to be alike than people often times realize. A couple of people with similar looks and similar levels of intellect are likely to run into a lot of similar things and hence develop along a similar track. Sure it's tied down to chance and with enough people it's bound to happen, but a surprising amount of personality is a byproduct of perceiving various things in a particular manner.

      Things as subtle as taste buds, eye color and ability to process auditory information make a substantial contribution to the formation of an identity.

    2. Re:So much bunk? by GravityStar · · Score: 1

      As far as the genes are concerned, opposites attract. And yes, when both partners have dissimilar genes, there is a lowered chance of extra-marital affairs.

  13. Gattaca? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gattaca?

    1. Re:Gattaca? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Gattaca.

    2. Re:Gattaca? by anomnomnomymous · · Score: 2, Funny

      A cat tag!

      --
      When you shoot a mime, do you use a silencer?
  14. Matching DNA? Oh, sweet... by ibsteve2u · · Score: 0

    ...so you marry your long lost sister...

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  15. Opposites Attract by dcollins117 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't think I would ever want to date anyone who even remotely resembles me.

    1. Re:Opposites Attract by maxume · · Score: 2, Funny

      So does that mean you would like to date a human being, or does it mean you would not like to date a human being?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Opposites Attract by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      So does that mean you would like to date a human being, or does it mean you would not like to date a human being?

      Can I plead the fifth on that one?

    3. Re:Opposites Attract by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      So YOU'RE the guy the republicans are so worried about with the whole sanctity of marriage thing...

  16. 99.9% match! by Tiger4 · · Score: 0

    Watch those match algorithms. This could prove to be a rather disturbing way to meet your long lost sibling. OTOH it could make a Great Jerry Springer / Dr Phil episode.

    --
    Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
  17. READ THE ARTICLE by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Informative
    For those of you that continue to think they are matching similar DNA, if you read the article you will find that they are doing the opposite.

    That is, they are trying to create "Hybrid Vigor" - matching people whose DNA matches the LEAST. Among other things this should reduce recessive traits. No more blond haired/blue eyed children, but also no more hemophilia.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:READ THE ARTICLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soooo.... are you saying my best match would be a Mongol? No way they are trying this again. We can nuke them and their horses now.

    2. Re:READ THE ARTICLE by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      That is, they are trying to create "Hybrid Vigor" - matching people whose DNA matches the LEAST. Among other things this should reduce recessive traits. No more blond haired/blue eyed children, but also no more hemophilia.

      For one generation. Unless the hybrid generation is ALSO screened to find their recessives, the traits will return in the next generation as the recessives get paired up randomly. This would probably be acceptable in the days where families had four or more children -- the chances of having mostly healthy ones would outweigh the risks. But in a world where most families are having one or two before splitting and re-pairing with others, you will instead have a lot of families with ONLY healthy children, and a handful with ONLY fucked up children. Those dealing with the defective kids will be less likely to re-pair (or attempt more kids), and thus be stuck with what they got. At a societal and species level, we should be able to deal with this. It's still going to lead to a lot of small-scale tardgedies.

      Mal-2

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    3. Re:READ THE ARTICLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is excellent news, the opposite of me is a very attractive, smart and socially well adjusted person. I can't wait.

    4. Re:READ THE ARTICLE by tayhimself · · Score: 1

      It's still going to lead to a lot of small-scale tardgedies.

      Thats not punny!!!

    5. Re:READ THE ARTICLE by DrCode · · Score: 1

      Exactly! But it also makes what they're doing fairly reduntant: Anyone who wants to find a mate who's not too genetically similar simply needs to date outside their ethnic or 'racial' group. I see this all the time.

    6. Re:READ THE ARTICLE by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember someone else who tried to make blond haired/blue eyed children... What was his name again?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler

      I seem to remember it didn't all turnout well for him.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    7. Re:READ THE ARTICLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Thank you for registering, user KKK4ever. You have been matched with BlkPowerGrrl..."

  18. Building up a smell/looks/DNA database by viking80 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would like to see the result of this study:
    -Take the DNA of all freshmen
    -Let the males and females smell each other one by one (in rooms so dark that beauty could be eliminated) and have them rate each other.
    -Let the males and females see and rate each others looks (like a criminal lineup)

    Now throw all that into a computer to find correlation between DNA / smell / looks.

    Now you can build the database to match couples based on DNA. A lot of interesting research could come out ot it too. Exactly which genes likes which genes, and which detest each other. Are there some universally unlikable genes, and what do they code? Are there some universally likable genes, and what do they code?

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
    1. Re:Building up a smell/looks/DNA database by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember reading somewhere that body odor was affected by the particular strains of colonies of bacteria living in your gut.

      Of course, when you last chose to bathe would be the dominating factor, but let's assume hygienic teenagers.

    2. Re:Building up a smell/looks/DNA database by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "-Let the males and females smell each other one by one (in rooms so dark that beauty could be eliminated) and have them rate each other." Oh, this is going to end badly...

    3. Re:Building up a smell/looks/DNA database by MaXintosh · · Score: 1

      Such a study would be riddled with false positives for any moderate sample size. In order to get statistical power over the whole genome (which is what you're proposing) you'd need a town's worth of data to even begin to correct for multiple tests. Whole Genome Inference is definitely in its infancy, and there's serious questions as to whether we'll ever be able to do it. It's much scientifically safer to approach these things with very specific hypothesis in mind.

    4. Re:Building up a smell/looks/DNA database by Dr.bme · · Score: 1

      If I remember my Immunology course teacher correctly, they did something to this extent with women at a party smelling shirts or something. I am pretty sure it only worked for women. The basis is that to better the species you want different HLA subtypes to maximize the available differences of your MHC receptors. Basically the more different HLA subtypes the better your immune system will be able to adjust to different pathogens. But I also remember that while this might be theoretically true it has no bearing whatsoever on reality, so woop de doo

    5. Re:Building up a smell/looks/DNA database by Taur0 · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt this would work. Smell works in combination of a lot of different factors. We are not programmed to judge the compatibility of a mate based solely on smell, but once they pass the other checks, smell adds some unconscious warning or encouragement. Asking people to judge someone in the dark would be asking for them to consciously judge the smell, which would result in a totally different effect. The better test would be to somehow have 1 person for each sex and somehow make them give off scents of others, then see if their ratings go up on average depending on the smell. Of course this is also flawed, you'd never really be able to replicate the entire smell and the signs the brain is looking for are incredibly small. It wouldn't be surprising if a difference in immune system proteins and anitbodies manifests itself in some other signs as well, voice, appearance, skin tone and complexion. Basically, there are too many factors. But I suppose that's true for all social sciences, and that's never stopped them yet!

    6. Re:Building up a smell/looks/DNA database by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends, if you're the researchers it will end badly as your containment of variables has been breached. If you're the freshmen it is probably the best study you'll be partaking in all year. Scientific study doesn't always have to be "boring" it can certainly be sexy when you lock males and females in a room and tell them to sex^H^H^Hsmell each other.

    7. Re:Building up a smell/looks/DNA database by HidingMyName · · Score: 1

      You may be referring to work done by Dr. Winnifred Cutler.

    8. Re:Building up a smell/looks/DNA database by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Studies on portions of what you suggest have been done. It's been shown that menstruating women can identify men with compatible DNA (non-duplicate immunities and such) by smelling their sweat. While they find most male sweat to be disgusting, they tend to find the sweat of men with compatible DNA smells sweet and intoxicating. However during the rest of their cycle, no male sweat smells good to women.

    9. Re:Building up a smell/looks/DNA database by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Are there some universally likable genes, and what do they code?

      Why, yes there are. They code for Slashdot use.

    10. Re:Building up a smell/looks/DNA database by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Time to break out the hex editor.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  19. Don't tell me: by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    PTBarnum.com

  20. Finally!!! by hackstraw · · Score: 1

    My anti-social personality and my not desiring long walks on the beach can find me a mate!

    Seriously, I have trouble dating and I've thought about using one of these services, but there is more to a person than their DNA. Plus, we can see much of people's dna from "interviewing" them and their family.

    1. Re:Finally!!! by robertjw · · Score: 1

      We do so many things scientifically, or at least with a process in our society, but when it comes to mating rituals there is simply chaos. Not only have we not introduced much practical technology to dating, all of the processes that have evolved over millenia have been summarily rejected by an enlightened society that believes procreation should be governed by romantic feelings instead of any kind of parental input or societal pressure. Personally I would welcome a system that would sample my DNA and provide me with a suitable partner. It couldn't really work any worse than our current system.

    2. Re:Finally!!! by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      DNA matching for a partner may work for children, but the getting along/liking them part seems like a stretch.

    3. Re:Finally!!! by robertjw · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but we don't know that for sure. There could be genetic markers that can work to match up personality and compatibility. Nothing else seems to work.

    4. Re:Finally!!! by MosesJones · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I have trouble dating

      and

      from "interviewing" them and their family

      Now correlation is not causation but....... I'd suggest reducing the formal interview requirements for prospective dates and particularly don't insist on interviewing their family before considering them for a date.

      Just a little hint....

      --
      An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  21. The Olfactory Web by Darth+Cider · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is why the HTML 6 specification will include an olfactory tag, so that biologically compatible people can agree or disagree on the basis of body odor, rather than the meaning of their words. The W3C is also considering the inclusion of an IQ tag, to further facilitate meaningful communication. It is hoped that an advanced markup system will improve the basic functionality of the internet, while also mitigating many of the problems associated with the wrong people getting together online, for understandable but regrettable reasons. The W3C considers the biggest preventable threat to tomorrow's information exchange to be the population of children born as a result of those unfortunate online hookups.

  22. Selective quotation by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 3, Funny

    And people tend to be attracted to the natural body odors

    I think slashdotters would have this market cornered.

    --
    Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
    altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
  23. I didn't RTFA by MaXintosh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I didn't RTFA, because I can proudly say that I was involved in the group that produced MHC mediated sexual selection studies that ScientificMatch.com uses to claim their rationale. A few comments: First, if Scientific match has any wits about them, they'll also consider other information. I don't think anyone's stupid enough to think there's a single correlate to mate selection. But the worry about people who are too different is poorly founded - MHC diversity is strongly retained throughout most human lineages. We've had negative frequency dependant since we were swimming in the ocean, and as a result, if you sequenced any given allele, you'd find that it's just as related to Gorilla sequence as it is another randomly chosen allele. My ex-boss used to have students do this as an exercise to illustrate the point. Because of this, you're just as likely to find someone very MHC (or in humans, HLA) dissimilar next door in these modern, mobile times, than you are in, say, in a distant country.

    Second: They're only (to my knowledge) matching at MHC for disassortative matings, not the rest of the Genome. How is this better than picking someone based on hobbies? Because research actually shows that mating patterns in humans follows this pattern. It is a bit of a crock, since the odds of you picking two people at random with similar MHC complements is low, but let's not get into that. ;)

    Finally, let me just say, I'm proud that so much scientific blood, sweat and tears into understanding the maintenance of the immune system, and what drives host-parasite co-evolution, has been distilled into an online dating site. Forget having worked with a Nobel laureate, this the highest honour a scientist can know. ;)

    1. Re:I didn't RTFA by mrsurb · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't think anyone's stupid enough to think there's a single correlate to mate selection.

      I think you underestimate the market-share of stupid.

    2. Re:I didn't RTFA by MaXintosh · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone's stupid enough to think there's a single correlate to mate selection.

      I think you underestimate the market-share of stupid.

      Okay, aside from people who think all they need is a sweet ride and the chicks will be all over them... :P
      Some groups do oversell correlates, but given how pervasive our MHC findings are, and how ancient the mechanism seems to be, I don't think we're over-stating it.

    3. Re:I didn't RTFA by dr2chase · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you figure dissimilar in the immune system, but similar on the sweet-ride preference?

    4. Re:I didn't RTFA by radtea · · Score: 1

      has been distilled into an online dating site.

      This isn't a "dating" site, it's a "mating" site, presumably aimed primarily at people under 30 or so who want to hook up for life with a single partner they intend to have children with. That's not "dating", which is spending time in the company of a member of the complementary sexual orientation, possibly naked, for pleasure (social, sexual, whatever).

      If you're going to call "singled minded pursuit of a suitable life-partner" "dating", then we need another word for "spending enjoyable time with someone who may or may not be a potential life partner but who's fun to be with."

      And the real problem is that if you think that the only point of dating is mating, you're missing out all of the social and relationship learning that goes on during dating. Some of my best times have been spent with women I knew from very early on had no potential as a life-partner, and those experiences taught me a great deal about myself and what works for me and doesn't in a relationship. Dating is an instance where the journey itself is an important part of the goal, and there is no other way to learn what you need except by actually taking the long way.

      Women, in my experience, really do tend to view every date as a potential step toward marriage or a long-term relationship, and tend to drop men when they feel things are "not going anywhere" (which means "not heading in the direction of marriage".) This is a silly attitude that seems to have been reified by this site. Dating only potential life partners is like companies that focus all of their resources on a few big customers, which is known to be a bad long-term strategy for a sustainable business.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  24. Will health insurance use this to get pre-existing by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Will health insurance use this to get a nice pre-existing conditions list and black list you?

  25. Culture vs. Genetics by Butterforge · · Score: 1
    Sorry, but I will continue to subscribe to dating services that allow me to find like-minded individuals, because my education in anthropology has taught me that cultural traits like fidelity and political affiliation are not genetic.

    Oops, did I just admit to using dating services?

    1. Re:Culture vs. Genetics by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Worse, you admitted to having an anthropology degree.

    2. Re:Culture vs. Genetics by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Why not try a new method since the old clearly hasn't worked out for you? Please, no crap about 'oh, i've met some interesting people and had some good conversations...', it isn't working if you're still using the sites and don't have a mate.

  26. Re:Matching DNA? Oh, sweet... by vlm · · Score: 1

    ...so you marry your long lost sister...

    Even weirder, assuming my wife is "the one" for me, this genetic method would imply my ideal "second choice" would be my sister in law (whom is single...) and my ideal "third choice" would be my mother in law (whom is single...)

    Somehow, I think the legendary persistence of in-law and mother-in-law jokes would disprove the whole theory.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  27. Perhaps even by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Healthier children is the only thing that could be possible improved there for me. The rest look more related to culture (education, environment, etc) things than to genetic ones. And they put it in the last place, even doubting that it could happen.

    Of course, if both deeply believe what they said (won't be so different from any "predicted" match coming from tea leaves, astrology, dices, numerology and reading hand lines) there are a chance that it will happens, and that is cultural too.

  28. great by nomadic · · Score: 1

    So I have to deal with a woman who is genetically predisposed to act like me? No thanks, I couldn't deal with a lifetime of myself.

  29. Re:Matching DNA? Oh, sweet... by Macrat · · Score: 1

    Blue bloods have been doing it for centuries.

  30. The world agrees with you by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    We all agree, nobody would want to date anyone who even remotely resembles you.

    Luckily, on slashdot, you are not alone. Welcome brother/sister.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:The world agrees with you by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      Touché.

  31. Why hello there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1'52 tall Mongolian bride.

  32. In other words ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    The idea is that people tend to be attracted to those who have immune system genes that are dissimilar from their own.

    ... the 98 lb weakling with chronic asthma, coke-bottle glasses and a physique suited to the chess club is attracted to the 6 foot tall blonde Swedish ski champion goddess.

    Slashdotters worldwide rejoice.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  33. Alcohol is the best environmental chemical. by Behrooz · · Score: 5, Funny

    In similar news, I'm starting a match making service based upon environmental chemical exposures.

    Hey, exposure to ethyl alcohol is strongly correlated to time of conception for a majority of slashdotters.

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
    1. Re:Alcohol is the best environmental chemical. by gilleain · · Score: 1

      No, exposure of their partners to ethanol is the important factor. I suppose I should say "our" partners, since I too have posted on slashdot.

    2. Re:Alcohol is the best environmental chemical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, exposure to ethyl alcohol is strongly correlated to time of conception for a majority of slashdotters.

      Yeah, just think how many fewer slashdotters there would be if their parents hadn't spent so much time drunk.

  34. Re:Matching DNA? Oh, sweet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And look where it got *them.* How's Egypt doing these days? Or the Tsars?

  35. Re:Will health insurance use this to get pre-exist by vlm · · Score: 1

    Will health insurance use this to get a nice pre-existing conditions list and black list you?

    They might deny coverage based on your likely future spouses medical conditions, even if you're currently single, on the theory that you and your theoretical ideal spouse might be a perfect match but unfortunately the theoretical ideal offspring might be x% more susceptible to some expensive illness, thus denied coverage.

    Or, they might just do business as usual, and collect high premiums because of the "high risk", and abandon you when a claim is made.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  36. Offensive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm the inbred, last member of the house of Habsburg, you insensitive clod!

  37. What else might they use the DNA for? by REALMAN · · Score: 1

    After matching 100's of thousands they then have a nice database of DNA and names to sell to other companies. Want insurance? Sorry, your genetic profile shows a disposition towards cancer. Want a job? Sorry, your genetic profile shows a disposition towards violent behavior. Don't feel bad. You got a nice date didn't you? What? She got you drunk and stole your wallet? Tough break kiddo.

    --
    - A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
  38. Re:Matching DNA? Oh, sweet... by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

    And here I thought Smurfs were only a cartoon.

  39. Business plan is doomed in the long run by vlm · · Score: 1

    The idea is that people tend to be attracted to those who have immune system genes that are dissimilar from their own.

    In the long run, if the kids HLA genes were an average of the parents, wouldn't this doom their business plan, along with the human race, once everyone had the same HLA genes?

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Business plan is doomed in the long run by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

      My word, they'd just have to settle for having billions of dollars if everyone used their product

  40. Pure aryan blood by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Finally a service that allows me to only meet pure white Aryans like myself and exercise my racist ignorant views under the guise of science.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Pure aryan blood by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

      You didn't actually read anything more than the headline.

      Did you?

    2. Re:Pure aryan blood by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I thought it would be more fun to just respond to the headline first then read the article. And boy was I ever right.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  41. 1,995.95 to signup to this rod fest. by ttroutma · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine that women would be attracted to this service. Add the 1,995.95 fee to that and the pool of users is going to be horribly selected for very rational white males.

  42. Re:Matching DNA? Oh, sweet... by xmousex · · Score: 1

    my wife has an identical twin....

    the behavior between the two girls is so radically different, my wife being more mellow and down to earth, while the sister is rambunctious, difficult, has a drug problem and always seems depressed. i cant imagine trying to maintain a serious relationship with the other girl.

    i think for the most part this match making on genetics stops at good sex and strong initial attraction. the mentality for a stronger long running relationship is several layers of complexity deeper.

    not that dna cares. dna just needs to get its job done. just reproduce, thats all that matters. where we go from there isnt even in the equation.

  43. Better children by ozbird · · Score: 1

    'How many dating services can you think of where they can suggest you might have better children?'

    Lebensborn, Nazi Germany, 1935. (Non-Aryans need not apply.)

    1. Re:Better children by rothic · · Score: 1

      That's right, wanting to have a child with a healthy immune system is just like being a Nazi. Sig heil.

    2. Re:Better children by quarterbuck · · Score: 1

      This should theoretically produce exact opposite effects.Nazi Germans were pairing people based on similar physical characteristics. In as much as looks correlate with geographical origins and geographical origins with disease resistance, they were pairing people with similar immunities.
      People born in different parts of the world should theoretically have very different immune systems. One example is the case of Native Americans who had no immunity to continental diseases and were almost wiped out when Europeans landed with TB and other diseases. In reverse, Europe was exposed to plague (from mid east?) and Syphilis (mostly American) but managed to survive after losing half the population . Sickle cell anemia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease) is prevalent in Africa, but it also provides resistance to malaria. People born outside Africa rarely get Malaria and sickle cell anemia is not common outside tropics.
      So if your pair people based on different immune systems you should also end up picking people who are of very different racial characteristics. A blonde, blue eyed European would be paired with an Alaskan and an African with a Japanese. At least this would have been the case if we did the pairing in 16th century. I am not sure how this works today, since almost all diseases are now spread globally and most people have some amount of immunity to most of them.

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    3. Re:Better children by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because procreation has always had it's roots in science and planning. It never had anything to do with the human need for sex, or love...

      I think I would rather have children, and a relationship with women who had some sort of emotional or sexual attachment than some government/corporate planned mating program.

      Talk about killing the idea of romance, and courtship. I know that might be beyond some of our online community's comprehension, but forcing the concept onto a society is definitely Nazi-like. If this becomes a social norm, and democratic societies decide that this is the best way forward, then I'll likely be leaving any country that adheres to this idea.

      As funny as movies such as Idiocracy maybe to online communities like ours, any douchebag that truly buys into the concepts of forced breeding plans will probably be rejected by women in general. I have enough faith in people to completely reject any such principles, unless this was forced upon them.

  44. Dating site matches people through E. coli tests by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

    KALLIKAK, Gattaca, Saturday — Genetic testing companies are promising to match couples based on Escherichia coli testing, touting the benefits of biological compatibility and claiming a match means better personality match, better sex and conclusive proof that they match right down to the asshole.

    "How many dating services can you think of where assholes can meet an asshole they really deserve?" said Eric Holzle, founder of AssholePersonalityDisorderMatch.com.

    People tend to be attracted to those whose personalities are appropriately complementary to their own. APDMatch claims to be able to ascertain this by scientifically measuring the characteristics of a prospective couple's digestive tracts.

    The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) inexplicably fails to detail Asshole Personality Disorder. However, a diagnosis of APD requires five or more of the following to be present for a significant period of time:

    • Self-importance
    • Refusal to acknowledge or even comprehend social rules
    • Delusions of adequacy
    • Believes others would do just fine if only they were sensible like him
    • Beliefs appear to change to match the situation, but that's just other people being idiotic
    • Pride in their superior people skills
    • Recto-cranial inversion
    • Projection of all symptoms on this list onto those around them.

    "If we can make sure that assholes end up with other assholes," said Dr Holzle, "we can save the rest of us from dealing with their ridiculous bullshit."

    But don't put too much faith in this, experts said. Dr. Rocio Moran, medical director of the General Genetics Clinic at the Cleveland Clinic, called the idea "ridiculous," and said the science of assholism is too complex to work out by looking at a few bacterial traces.

    "They are just trying to make a buck," she said. "Focusing on getting those bucks from assholes is, of course, commendable. But assholism is subtle and endemic. How many times have you heard some asshole proclaim, 'hah, that really sticks it to those assholes!'?"

    Holzle was not able to point to any success stories. "Quite frankly, the site tends to attract assholes. And do you think we ever want to talk to these people again? We have to swab these assholes' goddamn assholes. What a pile of shit this job is. What the hell was I thinking? Apparently some have bred. This will probably doom the human gene pool. I'm so very, very sorry."

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  45. Wired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could swear this was in Wired once... As a joke.

    After some searching through my collection: In the August 09 issue, in the 'Predict What's Next' section at the back, they had a thing about "Online Dating in the Future".

    The above was basically just that O_o

  46. Oooohhh... this is a bit frightening by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    I know others pointed this out already, but heck, real life is starting to look like Gattaca every day more and more, until we're all fucked.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Oooohhh... this is a bit frightening by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      until we're all fucked.

      Please don't tease your fellow /.ers in such a cruel manner!

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  47. Mimicking nature by RawsonDR · · Score: 1

    It has worked out so far for evolution, hasn't it?

  48. the transfer of responsibility to machines by diogenes.lantern · · Score: 1

    The science on this is still fairly recent, and as such, the claim that there is strong data linking these gene pairings with the longevity of a relationship, and even more doubtful, the lower probability of mates cheating on eachother, seems spurious to say the least. There are so many other factors at play here, a single corner of the genetic code can't justifiably be held responsible for the success of a relationship. At least not without comprehensive several decade studies, and even then, it's still one abstraction among many abstractions (which, for the most part, we are still in the dark about the true function and nature of).

    More troubling, though, is the abandonment of instinct in the dating world. When did we become so divorced and mistrusting of our senses and reason that we have come to rely on machines to screen possible mates, especially for a genetic trait that we can discover ourselves with our olfactory sense that we're equipped with from birth. And the argument that you're dating blind online doesn't work, because these traits aren't only going to be used online to determine the fitness of a prospective partner. Many companies want to build handheld scanners that test for these immune system flags. A negative match might mean that someone's faith in you as a partner is heavily diminished, despite your being compatible with them in a host of other ways.

    junk science; throw it out. trust your instincts and rapport with someone. a good immune system gene pairing does not a good relationship make

    1. Re:the transfer of responsibility to machines by MaXintosh · · Score: 1

      I whole heartedly disagree with your entire first and last paragraph. First of all, this research is not recent. We've known about MHC mediated mating preferences in mice since 1976 (Yamazaki et al.), and we've known about disassortative odour preference among humans since 1995 (Wedekind et al). The odour preference study was repeated in Brazil in 2005. Ober in 1997 analyized mating patterns in Hutterite colonies and found a disassortative mating patterns. Not just preference, this is actually who is _marry_ who!

      Further studies in other animals such as Sticklebacks (Milinski et al 2005), the aformentioned mice, the African Buffalo (Weink 1998), Fat-Tailed Dwarf Lemurs (Schwensow et al 2007), and it was suggested amongst San Nicolas Island fox (Aguilar et al 2004). These are just some of the diverse taxa the patterns have been noted in! You are hard pressed to find a more supported hypothesis!

      Are there other factors? Yes. Only an fool would deny this. But this is not to say MHC genotype is not a factor. And variance in expression of this disassortative drive is scarcely an argument to the contrary either. By way of example, just because some birds of paradise mate with ragged males does not mean females do not, on average, prefer males with elaborate tail plumage. Similarly, just because a some human couples are MHC similar does not argue that the average behaviour is to mate disassortatively.

  49. Anybodys else for Nutley? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    Are we sure they're not just corralling a bunch of stiffs at the bus station and pocketing our money?

  50. GATTACA (1997) music - Michael Nyman by HollyMolly-1122 · · Score: 0

    Ultimate movie to see about this subject GATTACA (1997) music - Michael Nyman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9fcHHOCBDg

  51. I don't need DNA testing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to know that when it comes to dating I come up an in-valid.

  52. Don't know about you guys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but I prefer to give my DNA during the date.

  53. We're marching to a faster pace... by hey! · · Score: 1

    Look out, here comes the Master Race!

    Seriously (and with apologies to Mel Brooks for quoting his masterpiece), this is an incredible pile of pseudoscientific horse shit. It reminds me of a guy I knew in high school who copied plans from a book for a UFO detector. He built the device, and was proud that it could detect UFOs *invisible to the naked eye*!

    I've been researching eugenic theories from the 1930s for a story I'm writing, a process that is all to easy because those opinions are alive and well today, and the papers of quacks like Dr. Robert Bennet Bean are still being quoted on sites like stormfront today. In fact the University of Virginia still proudly awards a prize in the name of this "researcher", who apparently didn't understand the concept of statistical significance, and could a negative finding into a positive one with a stroke of his twisted genius (the reason there was no physiological difference between the negro and white subjects in one study was that the cadavers were from the *best* negroes and the the *worst* whites -- thus converting Bean's negative finding in the data into a confirmation of his racial theories).

    Eugenicists aren't just ignorant of basic statistical concepts like significance and regression to the mean, they apparently don't understand what sex is for.

    Why do we as organisms bother with sex, instead of something simpler like mitosis or parthenogenesis? It's to create greater genetic diversity. This does no good for the individual. If you have a remarkably successful parent, you'd be better off being a clone, but evolution doesn't care about individuals. The *species* is better off if parents generate a range of offspring types, drawing from their generally successful genes and combining them in unpredictable ways. Furthermore, human beings, even the most inbred aristocratic families, are wild animals. We aren't like dogs that have been bred for literally hundreds of generations; genetically speaking we're mongrels.

    The upshot is you can't look at a single gene and make the kind of predictions these companies are pretending to make. Even if you had data that showed a mutation in one of a pair identical twins lead to a certain behavior, you couldn't conclude the same effect would occur in fraternal twins, unless you were talking about some kind of serious genetic anomaly. That's not even counting environmental behaviors on the development of phenotype, such as culture. Once the Danes got in longboats and went raping and pillaging. Now they are second in the world in percent of GDP spent on foreign aid.

    The idea you can predict the quality of sexual pleasure by matching genes is laughable. For one thing, for a guy sex is like pizza -- it's almost impossible to get it wrong. For a gal, guaranteed her gut feelings about the guy's behavior are going to be a better predictor of sexual pleasure than any genetic marker, because those feelings are so intimately tied to that pleasure.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  54. Heinrich Himmler... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your office is calling.

  55. How do I love thee? by BReflection · · Score: 1

    Oh how do I love thee? Let me spell the ways: GATTACA

    --
    python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
    1. Re:How do I love thee? by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      Oh how do I love thee? Let me spell the ways: GATTACA

      What is this GATTACA thing?

    2. Re:How do I love thee? by BReflection · · Score: 1
      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
  56. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  57. EPIC FAIL! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    This just proves how low one can go in knowing jack about dating.
    DNA tests? Yeah, because we want to stay 20+ years with a person, have sex and love each other, because of a great DNA match!
    Toootally realistic! ;)

    I think the best way to know if a dating site is good, is by finding out the dating skills of those who created it!

    On second thought. Why slow yourself down by using a dating site? Just read a bit about how dating actually works (There is no shame in knowing the theory. It can only make things better.), then go out and talk to girls! Gives you much more than any site could.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  58. To paraphrase... by faedle · · Score: 1

    One more group of women who won't have sex with me.

  59. They're right! by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

    I'm very attracted to the natural body odors of many females and I'm sure that they have different HLA stuffs than me (whatever that is).

  60. SF based on Facts?? by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Glad to know all those movies with Warp Drive and Hyperspace Wars and shrinking people and such belong in the Fantasy section of the bookstore now...

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:SF based on Facts?? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      You're corect.

      They do belong in the Fantasy section (perhaps under the subgenre Futuristic Fantasy). To put The Incredible Shrinking Man and other crap under the label "science fiction" is to dirty the word "science" and insult the entire field of science.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  61. History of the Eugenics movement was different by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Yeah, people who approve of eugenics tend to talk about designer babies; you'll see echoes of it in Heinlein and other early science fiction novels. But back when there was an active Eugenics movement, it was mostly about keeping the genetically undesirable from reproducing.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  62. I've had friends with Down's Syndrome babies by billstewart · · Score: 1

    and since they were in the US, they were also firearms enthusiasts. I'd advise against recommending killing Down's Syndrome babies around them; they might have other opinions about how to improve the gene pool...

    Also, most people with Down's Syndrome babies have them when the mother is older, and they're much better able to take care of them than people who had their kids at 20. If your concern is about the gene pool rather than the individual kids, remember that they're less likely to have kids of their own.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:I've had friends with Down's Syndrome babies by sowth · · Score: 1

      Also, most people with Down's Syndrome babies have them when the mother is older, and they're much better able to take care of them than people who had their kids at 20.

      Not that I am advocating anything either way, but who will take care of the person with down's syndrome after the parents grow old and die? Your point doesn't seem so great then.

      At the dialysis center I go to, there is a woman in her 60s or 70s who has to bring her thirty-something daughter with her, presumably because the daughter can't be left alone.

      In fact, where I was living several years ago and taking the bus, I'd see people with downs syndrome who were at least in their 50s and 60s, and they had to have "trainers" watch over them constantly. Seriously, you never knew if one of them would attack someone or what. One guy would sit next to women and use his elbow to touch women's breasts, and it was "okay" because he wasn't using his hands.

      This brings up the question: how far should society go to take care of someone? Then again, most people (at least in the US) would rather go with the self-righteous option, but then push the consequences onto someone else.

      Such as insisting assisted suicide be illegal, but then complaining about dying people costing insurance companies and government programs lots of money. Maybe they should "enjoy" suffering a long and painful death without any medical assistance or even medication to relieve symptoms (more than just pain happens.)

  63. my point by diogenes.lantern · · Score: 1

    was not that this flag doesn't play a part, but that it's being treated by many as a tell all, which I think is hardly supported. Although I do admit that there is strong evidence to support it's involvement in mate selection, the further claims I think are overboard. And, when people assume these further claims, I object to the technology for screening for the flag being used as a sort of relationship crystal ball.

    I have to admit that some of the findings are compelling. Complexity abounds in human behavior and genetics, though, and the idea that this marker tells all seems bizarre and quasi religious.

  64. Asian women. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, well I'm a white guy, and I like Asian (Japanese, and some (South) Korean) women. I find them far more attractive than the majority of American women.

    So does that mean that this service wouldn't work well for me?

  65. ...So in other words its Arranged Marriages again. by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

    ... the science may progress, but the sociology remains cyclical.

  66. HAHAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound like a winner.

    captcha: baller

  67. The Only Site Fit for the Job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will start caring as soon as the DNA test results are factored into my OKcupid match score.

  68. In-breeding!!! by zary · · Score: 1

    OOOH, OOOH, Great Idea!! We can have in-bred mutant babies much easier now!

  69. As if... by jojo78 · · Score: 1

    Dating wasn't hard enough.

    Woman: "I love that fact that you're successful in your career..."

    Man: "I hate the fact that your grandfather had green eyes..."

    Woman: "Well played sir..."

    Man: "Check please..."

    Then the abomination that is this date goes home to compare notes on blood sample preservation methods.

    The best part was the wine...

  70. the golden rule by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

    Okay, here's what they're missing. This is the golden rule of dating sites. It doesn't matter if you're physically attracted to a person like crazy if they're a complete bitch or asshole. It really does boil down to that. They can be good looking and a superior genetic match and healthier and blah blah blah but if you can't stand the person or their personality or they're just an awful person, I bet it won't work out real well!

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
  71. New wave of one-liners by supernes · · Score: 1

    Nice amino acids, wanna fuck?

  72. genetics by NightlordTW · · Score: 1

    or you could clone yourself and date it btw, since when is it good to have many genes in common, I thought it rather ruins evolution

    1. Re:genetics by natehoy · · Score: 1

      From the summary: "he idea is that people tend to be attracted to those who have immune system genes that are dissimilar from their own"

      If you cloned yourself, you would have a near 100% chance of not meeting your clone through this dating service, since your immune system would not be genetically dissimilar to that of your clone. Quite the opposite - unless there was an error in the cloning you'd be very, very similar. You and your clone would be lowest on the list of matches since there is no dissimilarity between your immune system genes. Slightly higher up, but still very low, on the list would be immediate blood relatives. Tending highest on the list would be people with a vastly different genetic background (different ethnicity). Though they are only going for immune system genetics, so those don't follow ethnic lines strictly to my knowledge (which is admittedly minimal).

      The evolutionary force you are referring to is called hybridization and the result is called hybrid vigor - the mixing of dissimilar genomes tends to reduce the chances of activating an undesirable recessive trait. This is particularly true in very similar genomes, such as immediate blood relatives. Any recessive traits are going to show up in a BIG damned hurry, quite often in the first generation. That's why we have laws (and societal values) against marrying or even bonking immediate family members.

      This specific genetic test does not cover enough of the genome to be useful, but if it did the decision would be generally desirable (you are choosing dissimilar genetics).

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  73. Badass = sexy by DavMz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The football team captain will get the girls.
    This was "demonstrated" on a japanese tv show: they had one of the animators of the show and a stunt actor running for 10min to make them sweat and thus emit more pheromones, before putting them in separate boxes with a hole at chest level and had them removing their shirts. Then, six girls were asked to smell them and designate which was the most sexy (without knowing who was in which box). All six of them chose the stunt actor. Apparently, girls are attracted to "bad guys", because they would have more manly pheromones.
    (Note: I am neither a biologist nor a native japanese speaker so I might have missed something...)

  74. NSDAP gene analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The company is a bit late to the market, also wrong country. They would have been hugely profitable in the late 1930's Germany, helping to refine the pure-blooded nordic population.

  75. This is not a new idea by talyene · · Score: 1

    This is nothing new. In some ultra-orthodox Jewish circles, organisations exist that will take a blood sample and tell you if you're a carrier of some hereditary disease such as Tay Sachs that could produce a child with the illness if you were to have a child with a another carrier. In the case of Tay Sachs, this is really critical as most newborns don't survive beyond the first few weeks and this causes incredible emotional stress for the parents. When a potential match is suggested, a check is made with the organisation to check if you're genetically compatible from a hereditary disease perspective. If you're not compatible, you never meet and therefore avoid and heartache later on. While DNA compatibility isn't necessarily full proof (the company in the article seem to be completely ignoring phenotype - i.e. how your DNA actually expresses itself when you're born, e.g. a DNA test may show you to have the ginger hair gene, but it may be recessive and never show itself), it could help people who subscribe to the service avoid the same issues. There's still a lot to be said for actually meeting the person and seeing a) if you get along with them and b) if there's an attraction.

  76. Expanding the Sample Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cemetery.

  77. Maggie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So eugenics is the new cool thing again?

  78. blood-type matching popular in Japan by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The fad of blood type matching in Japan seems odd to me. But it sounds like a precursor of genetic matching.

  79. Re:Matching DNA? Oh, sweet... by Yamata+no+Orochi · · Score: 1

    READ THE ARTICLE.

  80. Really... by OpenSourced · · Score: 1

    I would like to read the disclaimer you have to sign to become a client. Something like "Any relationship between us and people that know what they are doing, is purely coincidental".

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    1. Re:Really... by natehoy · · Score: 1

      I'm sure such a disclaimer already exists. These are dating companies, remember. They will go for any gimmick that makes their customers think there is a higher chance of getting lai... err, finding that perfect someone.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  81. Re:Matching DNA? Oh, sweet... by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    READ THE ARTICLE.

    Oh, but I did...and I also have no problem understanding the implications of the prominent use of the word "dissimilar".

    For instance, I could have said that I could replace the dating site's methodology - for myself, at least - by considering my own ancestry (an American whose ancestors have lived in this country for a quarter of a millennium) and shopping the "Mail Order Bride" rags and sites for someone who was not of English descent.

    But I didn't, obviously. Equally obviously, I wasn't trying to be "interesting" or "insightful"; I was simply trying to be a smartass.

    But, now that I think of it...what a wonderful way to add a veneer of science to the chancy game of "Mail Order Brides": Claim some genetic positive for rolling the dice on a sight-unseen relationship.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  82. Re:...So in other words its Arranged Marriages aga by natehoy · · Score: 1

    Absolutely. The ones arranging the marriages are the ones who voluntarily signed up for this, voluntarily paid their 2 grand, met and liked each other, ideally dated for a while (though this is their choice), and arranged a marriage with each other. I don't think I've ever attended a marriage that wasn't arranged. I wouldn't know where to show up, for starters. Heck, at least both people being married need to arrange to meet somewhere that a JP would be available and get a license beforehand.

    Oh, wait, you mean the generally-accepted definition of an "arranged marriage" where people other than the couple decide which person they are to marry? Like the parents, or their cult leader? Sometimes backing up the decision with the threat of disownment or excommunication, or worse?

    In that case, umm, no. This isn't an arranged marriage. This is an arranged FIRST DATE where both people ASKED for the date to be arranged.

    This is another snippet of data (of severely dubious value, but then a lot of them are) in dating services.

    The arrangement of the first date may LEAD to marriage, in fact for some clients marriage is the desired eventual outcome.

    The rest are, of course, men.

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  83. Re:Matching DNA? Oh, sweet... by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

    Send that twin over here, and make sure she has extra dope, I'm sick of fooling around with my cousin (actually, no, but I know she does it out of pity, and isn't having any fun, and I just don't want to pain her. She deserves better. ) And yes, I'm serious.

    --
    I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  84. HLA Matching = Better Spouse by Physician · · Score: 1

    I personally would like to marry someone who shared my HLA markers (assuming they're not my sibling) so they could donate their kidney to me someday if the need arose.

    --
    Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
  85. Re:Matching DNA? Oh, sweet... by Yamata+no+Orochi · · Score: 1

    That being the case would have made this a much more interesting article and ensuing discussion.

    The mail-order bride scheme, that is.

    Maybe you should get on that. No, seriously, that could be awesome.

  86. Re:Matching DNA? Oh, sweet... by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    Nah. I think somebody named Susanoo no Mikoto beat me to it.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  87. Re:...So in other words its Arranged Marriages aga by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

    True enough. DNA in this analysis could be interpreted less as fate and more as natal astrology. So long as the stars and the amino acid sequences don't dictate fate or lull folks into a false sense of security. Perhaps for a real good time there might be daredevils who only date those most incompatible...sort of a Taming of the Shrew, when Harry Met Sally, or The Bride of Frankenstein kinda lighting love. What's my sign meets e-harmony, meets prenuptial, paternity, and std testing, all rolled up in Yentl. I guess if we pay for the service, but not for the escort, its all legitimate and potential romance. "People people who need people....."

  88. Re:...So in other words its Arranged Marriages aga by natehoy · · Score: 1

    Frankly, it's an $2000 upgrade to checking the little ticky-boxes or whatever where you state your preferences.

    Note the important phrases: "upgrade" and "$2000".

    But then again people have been charging for decades now to wave colored crystals over other people in the belief that it somehow aligns their chia pets or something.

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."