Stanford, U.C. Berkeley Offer Students Genetic Testing

cappp writes with this snippet from Scientific American: "This week Berkeley will mail saliva sample kits to every incoming freshman and transfer student. Students can choose to use the kits to submit their DNA for genetic analysis, as part of an orientation program on the topic of personalized medicine. But U.C. Berkeley isn't the only university offering its students genetic testing. Stanford University's summer session started two weeks ago, including a class on personal genomics that gives medical and graduate students the chance to sequence their genotypes and study the results."

Comments

So?

[fotbr]

They can choose to participate or not. Seems like a non-story to me.

Re:So?

[skids]

Also, the program isn't solely about science. TFA says one of the chief goals of the project was to spark the very personal thought process that surrounds choosing whether or not to participate. So they want their students thinking about the privacy implications that will accompany personalized medicine, along with other hot-button issues.

This is good. Maybe the kids will "be OK" and grow up with a mature and nuanced opinion on genetic testing, and how it's inevitable progress will have to be carefully integrated into our cultures and ethics, rather than paranoid kneejerkism.

Voluntary... for now

[epp_b]

Well, I can't possibly foresee any way that this could ever be abused.

Re:Voluntary... for now

[phantomfive]

That's kind of pointless....anything can be abused. You know that whole freedom of speech thing? It can be abused (fire in a crowded theater, abusive speech, etc. etc). Baseball bats can be abused. The ability to use computers can be abused. ANYTHING CAN BE ABUSED. If you spend all your time worrying about things that can be abused, you're going to spend all your time being outraged, and become bitter and cynical. Oh, did that describe you?

Seriously though, your argument is extremely similar to those who say looking at porn can lead to looking at child porn. While technically correct, it really doesn't have any affect on the situation at hand other than to raise an emotional issue. "Think of the privacy" is the nerds equivalent of "think of the children." The program is voluntary. There really is nothing wrong with it, any more than there is a problem with Safeway sending you coupons in the mail.

Admissions

[snookerhog]

It's not a privacy story yet, but when they start asking for DNA samples with your admission essays you can expect the discussion to heat up here.

Re:Does anyone see a GATTACA coming true?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"Oh, your credentials are excellent; but I'm afraid your mortality profile is not what we are looking for. The best alumni donors live long successful lives, then die relatively swiftly, leaving plenty for a generous bequest. The ones that die young and tragically we admit strategically, for their potential artistic value; but the ones that are likely to linger for years under ever costlier treatments just aren't worth it."

"Though, on the other hand... I like you kid, you seem like the right sort, not really your fault that you'll probably die slowly of something from 90 to 97. Re-apply, with an essay that has a bit more stoicism and enthusiasm for the sort of motorcycles that you'll be able to afford just as your reflexes are starting to deteriorate, and I'll talk to some people I know..."

*own* saliva?

[DoofusOfDeath]

So imagine you get someone drunk and passed-out, swab their saliva, and submit it as your own.

Voila - you get a prediction of their future medical history!

Now that would open the door to some interesting conversations in the future with that person!

Re:Potential for a modern day scam company

[hedwards]

That's always puzzled me, even if you do manage to transform the memories, all you get is a situation like the 6th day. A clone that has your memories, but isn't really you.

Big difference between Berkeley and Stanford

[kabloom]

I think there's a big difference between what Berkeley's doing and what Stanford's doing.

At Stanford, seeing as how it's a graduate level class, the students understand that the purpose is to explore the implications of genetic testing for this kind of application (not unlike a graduate-level MIT class I read about some years ago about wearable computing where the purpose was to explore how wearable computing might affect our lives.) It doesn't bother me too much that they do this, so long as the institutional review board was consulted (if it was appropriate to do so.)

At Berkeley, on the other hand, the Freshman orientation program treats this as a more or less settled societal issue.

Re:Does anyone see a GATTACA coming true?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Do we need a "Godwin" variant for Gattaca references every time genetics are mentioned? "Dude! You just Gatted the thread!"

Apparently we do. Of course, the paranoid citation of science fiction as an objection to actual science goes at least back to Frankenstein, but Gattaca really seems to have taken on that role in the modern discussion of genetic issues. Jurassic Park often gets thrown in as a lagniappe.

Just in case this isn't clear to everybody: Frankenstein, Jurassic Park, and Gattaca were all fiction. They're stories. They're made up. They didn't really happen. At least Hitler and the Nazis actually existed ...