UC Berkeley Asking Incoming Students For DNA

peterofoz writes "The students will be asked to voluntarily submit a DNA sample. The cotton swabs will come with two bar code labels. One label will be put on the DNA sample and the other is kept for the students' own records. The confidential process is being overseen by Jasper Rine, a campus professor of Genetics and Development Biology, who says the test results will help students make decisions about their diet and lifestyle." No word in the story on just what "confidential" means — who will have access to the results, how long they'll be kept, or what else they might someday be used for. Will the notoriously liberal Berkeley campus see this as a service or an invasion of privacy?

Comments

Welcome

[thijsh]

Please leave your DNA with the school nurse...

Re:Welcome

[Quiet_Desperation]

Please leave your DNA with the school nurse...

Is she cute?

Re:Welcome

[rotide]

I don't see the problem as it appears voluntary. Now obviously they need to disclose what purposes it will ever be used for and exactly how the process of keeping it confidential works but assuming that's all copacetic there really don't seem to be any issues. Again, it's voluntary.

Re:Welcome

[Tubal-Cain]

As a Slashdotter, are you really going to be that picky?

Both, of course

[spun]

Liberals tend to think for themselves, so I imagine we will see many different viewpoints emerge, rather than some lock-step, campus wide consensus.

Re:Both, of course

[spun]

No blacks with guns were filmed and called white racists. The majority of America supports health care reform. The Democrats have tried to be bipartisan, but the Republicans have stone-walled them. The conservative minority is fracturing, going crazy with conspiracy theory fueled rage. The deception from the right wing is astonishing: Obama is a Muslim, Obama is Kenyan, death panels, the list goes on. Meanwhile, Republican after Republican is caught doing the exact opposite of what they preach, usually in bed with someone not their spouse. Who are the deceptive fuckheads, really?

Re:Both, of course

[spun]

Liberals tend to think for themselves, so I imagine we will see many different viewpoints emerge, rather than some lock-step, campus wide consensus.

No bias here whatsoever.

You have no bias? We've conversed before, so unless you've changed recently, I don't believe you, sorry.

Re:Both, of course

[commodore64_love]

>>>Liberals tend to think for themselves

I guess that's why they all share the same talking points: "Let's call them teabaggers." "There are no people of color in the Tea Partys." "Tea partiers are racist." "What he needs is more gravitas." - And so on. I call that mimicking one another, not independent thought.

Re:Both, of course

[spun]

Sorry, but in order for people to be free, we need government intervention. Otherwise, the powerful oppress the weak. That was the whole reason we fought off King George, and we still need protection against tyrants, who now use economic coercion. Wage slavery is still slavery. Wall Street CEOs are the new kings, not Obama.

Re:Both, of course

[AthanasiusKircher]

Nope. Despite the propaganda put out by certain groups that do think in lock-step, liberals are fairly... liberal in their thinking.

Bullshit. Anyone who would ever accept the name "liberal" in the U.S. is already buying into the idea that there is only one possible spectrum of ideas, which goes from "conservative" to "liberal." Most people seem to think that any possible collection of political ideas should be able to be mapped onto that one-dimensional scale. If you actually were thinking independently, you wouldn't buy into this oversimplified (and inaccurate) model.

Liberals don't tend to hold the view that things are perfect just the way they are. Upholding the status quo means thinking the same thing: everything is peachy just the way it is and the old ways are best.

Here's a newsflash -- the reality is that a lot of ideas have been around for a long time. Those who are supposedly "liberal" may actually be wanting to go back to older ideas as well, or older ideas that were rejected in the past for various reasons. If you think that "conservatives" only want things to stay the same, take a look at the "neo-conservative" movement, which has actively tried to change society in the past few decades. In your naive conception of conservative/liberal, is it even possible to have a "neo-conservative"? You might argue that the neo-cons are actually trying to return to some deeper past, but we all know that's just rhetoric -- their idealized past never existed.

Instead, liberals are open to new ideas and new ways of looking at the world, so they tend to be more eclectic in their thoughts and ideals than some other groups.

That may have had some traction in the classic "liberalism" on the nineteenth century. Today, though, the vast majority of "liberals" are just sheep buying into a certain collection of ideas that certain people deem "liberal."

You want to be truly open to new ideas? Start thinking independently for yourself. Analyze every political question from your own perspective and logic, and decide what makes the most sense to you. The standard modern "conservative" and "liberal" positions aren't very consistent and make a lot of assumptions that don't necessarily make a lot of sense.

Re:Both, of course

[Mr. Slippery]

A new and truly liberal idea is to let each Individual be sovereign & run his/her own affairs with virtually no government interference.

Indeed. So long, that is, as we understand that all forms of concentrated wealth arise from government interference -- landlordism, corporate ownership, inheritance, et cetera -- and eliminate them.

I don't think, though, that you'll find many conservatives arguing that the government's power to issue and enforce land deeds, corporate charters, copyrights, patents, etcetera, should be restricted.

"Smaller government!" has been only a marketing slogan for conservatives, even as federal spending has gone up more under GOP administrations than under Democratic ones. For most in the conservative movement, "Smaller government!" means only less regulation on economics parasites like landlords and shareholders, less regulation of pollution and of shoddy, dangerous, and fraudulent goods, and fewer laws to enforce civil rights; but more government power to regulate personal behavior, and more power to back up private privilege.

Re:Both, of course

[AndersOSU]

Oh please. The tea party movement started as a campaign to mail tea bags to congress. Sure the teabagger label may have first been used by detractors, but it didn't come out of the blue, and it was quickly adopted by it's proponents - fully aware of the double entendre. It was only after Fox news decided to sponsor the movement that they realized that some uptight conservative might google "teabagger" and have their delicate sensibilities upset that spokespeople for the movement decided they were the tea party movement, not the tea bag movement. Libertarians may be wrong about just about everything, but at least they (usually) have a sense of humor. The same can't be said for Fox news's target demographics.

I would never say that everyone who attends tea party rallies was racist, but there's some ugly stuff percolating in the movement. Ever since the GOP decided to swell it's ranks by picking up southern defectors from the democratic party in the wake of the civil rights movement, they've been plagued by racism. If the tea party movement doesn't want to be associated with racism, they should clean up their house. Speakers should shame protesters with racist placards. They should stop pushing the Obama is a Muslim line. But they won't. Dick Armey and Liz Cheney are smart people. They know that denouncing racism and racists in the strongest possible terms will alienate a small, but important part of their base. They need to play to the fears and insecurities of lower middle class white America - and those fears and insecurities have a distinctive racial bias. Why else would immigration and affirmative action (which, outside of academia is for all intents and purposes defunct) be such important issues?

Re:Both, of course

[AndersOSU]

Someone who would be described as liberal in the US has what the rest of the world would call "center left economic opinions" - not socialist.

Libertarian, on the other hand means bat-shit-crazy wherever you go.

Re:Both, of course

[Hatta]

But government IS the oppressor. How else do you explain that I will be fined $950 because I exercised a Pro-Choice decision not to have hospital insurance

Corporations are the oppressor. How else do you explain all the people who simply simply could not choose to have health insurance because no one would take them? How do you explain the people who had health insurance, got sick, and were promptly dropped? How much choice did they have?

So, you're out $950. Big deal. People have lost their lives because of the malfeasance of the health insurance industry. You still have the freedom to complain about it. The dead don't have any freedom at all.

Re:Both, of course

[Hatta]

Um... I believe the current president is considered "in living memory". Yet, all those who screamed that Bush was taking liberties are now strangely silent. It makes me believe that those people were not worried about losing their liberties. They were simply using it as a club to beat the 'R' over the head with.

Yes, Obama is pretty bad. He voted for the patriot act and has continued the practice of warrantless wiretapping. Bush still comes out ahead because he started it. I do wish more attention was paid to how bad Obama is for civil liberties though.

And as for Bush taking liberties away... I could do everything I could do in 2001 that I could do in 2009. Exactly zero of my liberties were taken. For that matter, I don't know of anyone who lost any freedoms whatsoever under Bush.

We lost the freedom to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. We lost the right to a writ of Habeas Corpus. We lost the right not to be tortured by our own government. Any one of those is a much greater infringement of freedom than what amounts to a tax raise.

Re:Both, of course

[AndersOSU]

Back when the tea party movement actually was grassroots (for about 2 weeks) before Dick Armey's freedomworks and Fox News co-opted it. This is how the tea party movement got it's start.

Look. There's no excuse for violence at a non-violent protest. In any group some people are asses. I'm not faulting the tea party movement for it's fair share of idiots, I'm faulting it for the racist element it harbors above and beyond its idiot quotient. Aside from the really overt and disguistingstuff, there's only so many times you can say "real americans" need to "take back america" from Obama who isn't eligible to be president because he's a secret Kenyan Muslim Manchurian candidate before it comes across as racially motivated.

When polling finds this:

For instance, the Tea Party, the grassroots movement committed to reining in what they perceive as big government, and fiscal irresponsibility, also appear predisposed to intolerance. Approximately 45% of Whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy. Perceptions of Latinos aren’t much different. While 54% of White Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be hardworking, only 44% think them intelligent, and even fewer, 42% of Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be trustworthy. When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage.

When you put it all together, it's impossible to conclude that racism isn't an important motivating factor in the tea party movement.

I'm torn

[Monkeedude1212]

It's voluntary, so there is no invasion of privacy going on, when you give up your DNA willingly you can't be expected it to be held very strongly in confidentiality. It's kind of like that whole unsecured Wifi debacle. If you don't know exactly what they want to do with your DNA, you'd be a fool to give it to them. That is their mistake to make though, I'm not going to deny them that by saying this kind of action should be illegal.

If kids want dietting tips, or help on decisions, there are plenty of resources out there. I'm a little more paranoid at the idea of this becoming Comfortable. First its "Let us take your DNA to help you diet". Even if only 10% of people sign up, if they enjoy their results they'll tell their friends to partake in it next year. It will grow, until more schools are doing it. Then the elementary schools will do it. Then that confidentiality agreement will phase away, and there goes the neighbourhood.

I guess the only course of action is to warn people of the dangers and hope they make the right choice.

Re:I'm torn

[Monkeedude1212]

You think the school is going to negotiate with every student on campus? They haven't the manpower or the resources or the time.

There will be a set contact, and you can either take it or leave it, I imagine. And since we don't know the details of that arrangement, I'd err on the side of caution.

Re:I'm torn

[Kozz]

You said:

It's voluntary, so there is no invasion of privacy going on, when you give up your DNA willingly you can't be expected it to be held very strongly in confidentiality.

There's an interesting related story here. From the article itself:

Members of the tiny, isolated tribe had given DNA samples to university researchers starting in 1990, in the hope that they might provide genetic clues to the tribe’s devastating rate of diabetes. But they learned that their blood samples had been used to study many other things, including mental illness and theories of the tribe’s geographical origins that contradict their traditional stories.

We all know what the majority of slashdotters probably think about the tribe's beliefs, origin myths, etc. But the fact is that the researches thought that once they had the material (the DNA/blood), they could crunch the numbers in attempts to answer many questions. But the donors of said material didn't approve all that was done. I'm not trying to say who is right or wrong, but it's a cautionary tale for any organization that wants to conduct research of this kind.

Re:Gattaca?

[Thanshin]

There's no gene for fate.

Maybe not, but there's one for AWESOME!

No. Sadly, I don't have it.

It's for their own good.

[John Hasler]

> Will the notoriously liberal Berkeley campus see this as a service or an
> invasion of privacy?

It's only invasion of privacy if it's done by an evil "corporation" or other capitalist running dog. Everything a liberal organization does is for your own good and only a right-wing wacko would ever suspect one of failing to diligently and effectively safeguarding his privacy (especially when said organization is part of the state of California: you know they have only your best interests at heart and know better than you what you need).

 

Re:Absolutely UNREAL that the Berkeley IRB approve

[rotide]

Did you notice it was voluntary? It's not a requirement. If a freshman doesn't want to do it, it appears they can just not do it. Not sure if people should be fired for offering voluntary choices to new students. I guess, however, in our coddled child society, choices might confuse and damage the young minds. If we don't spoon feed them and water everything down to the bare minimum, they might not be able to cope!

Re:Why?

[Pojut]

"Once the DNA sample is sent in and tested, it will show the student's ability to tolerate alcohol, absorb folic acid and metabolize lactose."

Not sure if they will test for other things or not, but that's the list provided thus far.

Frankly, I'm not sure you could survive college without knowing those things about yourself...

As long as it's explicit.

[AnonymousClown]

As long as it is expressed explicitly that this is voluntary and the privacy policy is written, I don't have a problem.

Unfortunately with most bureaucracies (especially universities), voluntary things have a bad habit of being "required". For example, a student goes in, University bureaucrat just says "and give me your DNA sample." Most students having to go through all the horseshit, including having to give Social Security numbers, probably won't even think to ask if it is in fact voluntary.

Speaking of SSNs, those used to be voluntary and now they're required. And when that happens, school admin folks become very careless with personal data - universities are just horribly incompetent with student's personal information.

It's not *really* voluntary.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

It's voluntary from the college's point of view. The problem is that things that are voluntary from the school's point of view are things that students who are applying are strongly compelled to do. It's absurd, but higher education admissions are a game of signals, and high school students (And their parents) don't want to risk giving the wrong signals when there are thousands of people competing with them. This means that there's a strong incentive do anything "voluntary" on the application.

The school may not even be thinking this, because schools often think students' calculations about how to get in are just over-the-top and absurd. But the schools should be thinking this, because applicants at competitive schools will almost always make those calculations, no matter that the school says "Don't worry about it so much" in the left hand while saying "We only admit the very best!" in the right hand.

How quickly we forget: "posture photos"

[AEton]

From the 1940s to the 1970s, Ivy League colleges took naked pictures of every incoming freshman, supposedly for use in scientific studies of the students' posture.

I am not making this up. See, e.g., this Times coverage from 1995.

I'm not going to make any kind of normative statement about whether people should say Yes to Cal's offer, here, but just wanted to point out that weird-ass instrusions into student privacy are nothing new.

Privacy

[mollog]

Privacy used to be expected. Now I no longer expect it. I expect that everything that is done on the internet is viewed by someone, somewhere. In a discussion yesterday about Microsoft's NSAKEY, it was discovered that there was yet another hidden key embedded in Microsoft apps to allow the government access to your data. Brave new world.

Coming soon to your community; risk assessment of every individual, eugenics, fascism.

Re:Privacy

[oldspewey]

This is only a problem while "one side" has a monopoly on the use of these technologies. If invasive technology is ubiquitous and uncontrollable, then any abuse of that technology should be totally transparent to everybody.

In short, the answer to "who will watch the watchers" needs to be "everyone ... and records should be kept forever."

Re:Privacy

[commodore64_love]

Why did you tell me that? I was living in oblivious happy ignorance until you told me MS has government backdoors in my software. :-( Oh well.

Is Mac OS any better? (falls over laughing)

As for the DNA I wouldn't have any problem giving it voluntarily since they don't know who I am (just a barcode). The problem is that voluntary often evolves into compulsory. SSI was originally a voluntary retirement program* but it quickly became mandatory, and Weekly Tax withholding used to be a "convenience" for workers but by the 1950s it became mandatory too.

*
* Some communities still have voluntary SS, like Amish Americans and state government workers in Arizona (I think it's AZ - have to double check).

Re:Privacy

[NiceGeek]

People still believe in the NSAKEY rumor? How cute.

How is this different from

[Robert Heinich]

the Ivy League nude posture photos were taken in the 1940s through the 1970s of all incoming freshmen at certain Ivy League and Seven Sisters colleges, ostensibly to gauge the rate and severity of rickets, scoliosis, and lordosis in the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League_nude_posture_photos

DO NOT WILLINGLY SUBMIT YOUR DNA!!!

[jtownatpunk.net]

Kids, DO NOT DO THIS!!! Ever! For any reason! Holy shit, do you have any idea how crazy this is? There are sooooo many ways this information could be used against you, both now and in the future that I could type for hours without even scratching the surface.

Once you give this data away, you can't take it back. You can't control it. You will have no way to know where it goes or who has access to it.

Berkeley students, you should be out marching and protesting right now. Your protests should make national headlines by Friday. Get to it!

Re:DO NOT WILLINGLY SUBMIT YOUR DNA!!!

[Ixokai]

... umm, did you miss the part of the story where they *aren't* storing the student's identity with the DNA? I could walk outside for an hour or two and get a couple hundred random DNA samples from random strangers for study, and have absolutely no more idea who they belong to. Since our DNA just sort of falls off of us terribly easily.

The profiles aren't connected to students names, records, SSN, identities, nothing. Just a random number encoded in a barcode. The only way anyone can know that 123456789 happens to be you is if you tell them or show them your barcode.

Its research. And an interesting service.

Yes, the tinfoil hat wearing can argue that between IP logs and cookies and such, someone could probably figure out your identity if they really wanted to.

But then they can also just get your DNA from your *skin cells* that you shed all the time. And if they were going to be nefarious like that, the usage of that DNA sample for any random purpose against your interests would probably be legal: you have no expectation of privacy there.

Yes, it is

[snowwrestler]

Read the article, please. The request is in the welcome package for new students, not the application. Thus, "signals" in the application process are not an issue. The only people getting the request are those who already know that they have been accepted.

UC Berkeley's Not Liberal

[Doc Ruby]

UC Berkeley's campus isn't liberal. It's got the most stereotypical frat/sorority ghetto I've ever seen. Its budget is stuffed with defense contractor and other giant corporation contracts, especially oil and telecom corps. Its law school hired John Yoo, the Bush lawyer who wrote the US torture regime rationalizations.

The list goes on. But these "Conservative" (corporatist, or worse) activities are defined by being exclusive, even covert, even secret. While Berkeley's actually "liberal" (or whatever's not "Conservative") activities are usually defined by being public, even extroverted. Then take the mass media's interest in hiding the "Conservative" activities behind a distracting "liberal" show, and you get Berkeley a reputation for being "liberal".

Re:UC Berkeley's Not Liberal

[PAKnightPA]

Uhh seriously? Because this comment is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start. I just graduated yesterday after four years at Berkeley. It's a huge campus and so not everyone is liberal, but its overwhelmingly very very far left wing. Both the professors and the students. And have you ever been to the co-ops? It seems for many of them the sixties never ended. I'm quite left of center, but I sometimes feel like a republican relative to many on the campus.

And the frat/sorority system isn't quite typical either. Sure there are some douchy frat boys and tanorexic sorority girls, but there are also many people who you wouldn't suspect to be in frats. I know one guy graduated to become a NASA engineer. I know a sorority girl who is working at Google next year. There are so many more examples it would be ridiculous to name them all.

And the protests? Last November there were protests against state budget cuts where a huge number of people showed up. Like maybe 5000? Not to mention the tree sitters, the hunger strikers, the unions, the riots this semester, the protesters who took over Wheeler, the popularity of the new Global Poverty minor etc etc etc.

I guess you can talk about the funding we get from corporations. The BP deal is a bit sketchy, but it's 500 million dollars, we need that money. I hardly think this makes Berkeley overwhelmingly right wing. And the whole John Yoo thing is a bit weird, and I'm not sure what should be done about that, but damn dude, UC Berkeley is amazingly liberal.