Slashdot Mirror


Pee On Your Phone STD Test

Shakrai writes "British health officials are hard at work on a new app that will allow users to pee into their cell phones and find out within minutes if they have an STD. From the article: 'Doctors and technology experts are developing small devices, similar to pregnancy testing kits, that will tell someone quickly and privately if they have caught an infection through sexual contact. People who suspect they have been infected will be able to put urine or saliva on to a computer chip about the size of a USB chip, plug it into their phone or computer and receive a diagnosis within minutes, telling them which, if any, sexually transmitted infection (STI) they have. Seven funders, including the Medical Research Council, have put £4m into developing the technology via a forum called the UK Clinical Research Collaboration.'"

9 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. really? by adeelarshad82 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    not sure i'm going to want to hold that phone again

    1. Re:really? by camperdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not really sure what the application of this is.

      So your results can be transmitted to medical authorities.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:really? by adeelarshad82 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      there should be tags for sarcasm

    3. Re:really? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not really sure what the application of this is.

      The summary lists "test yourself" as the main application, but I think the real application will be "test the other person". If it becomes socially acceptable to ask for a saliva sample before having sex, this could put a real dent in STD rates.

      Why not simply make a stand-alone STD test that doesn't require a phone.

      Because it would cost more.

      I mean, it has worked for pregnancy tests for years.

      Pregnancy related hormones are far, far more concentrated in the urine than antibodies to STDs.

      I'm pretty sure you don't need a 1GHz Snapdragon CPU ...

      You don't need 1GHz, but you do need a CPU. Since everyone already has a cellphone, you don't need another CPU to do the analysis or another device to display the result.

    4. Re:really? by argmanah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When I was single, and on some occasions ended up someone new at her place or mine, yes, I did always have a condom on me, in my wallet so I always knew where it was. I also always had a morning after pill in my car, in case something unexpected happened or the condom failed and she was not on birth control. Precautions like these took little to no effort. There really is no excuse in a civilized society.

      I'm convinced that the fact that this level of preparation is somehow unusual as opposed to the standard is due to the prevalence of abstinence only sex education in the U.S.

      --
      Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
  2. Camera Testing? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How about a little rig with capillary tubes etched throughout a couple of thin plastic plates that you touch edgewise to some urine or blood, that pulls the fluid through, then snaps into a little frame attached to the phone's camera lens. All calibrated to give image data to a server that looks for interactions of disease causes/products with the sizes, shapes and materials in the tubes. Then sends results back to the phone. The little rig should be small and cheap enough to dispense in nightclub bathrooms or drugstores, neater than a pregnancy test, and without leaving any analysis up to the user's eyesight, manual dexterity or intelligence.

    The people we most want getting prompt STD infection results are the ones who already aren't competent to keep safe by practicing safe sex. And other infectious diseases are just a little further back in the "evolution safety skills" stack. "Foolproof" is the #1 design objective, because fools have a higher rate of being the most important user segment.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  3. Re:I could be wrong, but... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...you'd think people with smartphones have the money and sense to use protection.

    Well, protection only reduces your chance of contracting certain diseases, it does not eliminate it. It's also less than effective on certain (herpes) STIs than is commonly believed.

    Monogamy > protection. Added bonus: Not having to use condoms. That interface didn't evolve with a piece of latex in mind....

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  4. This Is Prevention, Too by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People who pee on their phones are less likely to get any sexually transmitted disease, because they're less likely to get any sex (with another person, anyway).

    However, those phone peeing people who do get sex are more likely to catch something dirty, given the kind of people who will have sex with them.

    The use stats of a device like this could tell us quite a lot about human nature.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  5. Possible false security? by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not all STDs can be tested for via a urine test, but if average person pee's and detects no infection it may actually give them a false sense of security and thus help increase infection rates of STDs that require blood or other tests.

    The above could also lead to a game of "lets pee on the phone *before* we have sex and if we both come up clean then we can ditch the condoms" - yeah that'll help infection rates

    Some previous responses have said "People who can afford smart phones are smart enough to use protection". I'll counter with "People who can afford smart phones can also afford alcohol, and alcohol and urgency will decrease protection usage"

    Finally what is the false negative rate of this test

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?