Slashdot Mirror
Biden Unveils Open-Access Database To Advance Cancer Research (go.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: Vice President Joe Biden unveiled a public database for clinical data on cancer on Monday that aims to help researchers and doctors better tailor new treatments to individuals. Overseen by the National Cancer Institute, the Genomic Data Commons starts with genomic and clinical data for 12,000 patients. The system is designed to increase sharing of information about the gene sequences of tumors and how patients with those tumors responded to specific treatments. "The information is scattered among different government and academic repositories. Most of it is out of the reach of scientists," Biden said. "We're bringing it into one space." Though easily searchable, the database includes protections for privacy and security, Biden said. He urged cancer experts gathered in Chicago to "upload your raw genomic data" to the system for use by fellow researchers. "All of you know it's the right thing to do," Biden said. "It's the quickest way for us to move forward. And it's not technically hard for us to do it." You can read the key features of the GDC via The White House here.
What? Oh, never mind.
.. for releasing my private genomic data? My samples were supposed to be protected!
Oh no, here come all the "cannabis cures cancer" nutcases
Cannabis doesn't directly cure cancer, but it can suppress the severe nausea caused by many chemotherapy drugs, which means more patients complete the course, which means more of them recover and survive.
So far, the only downsides to cannabis legalization have been prison guard layoffs, and the extra burden on politicians that have to figure out how to spend all the money from dope sales taxes.
So far, the only downsides to cannabis legalization have been prison guard layoffs,
Well, there are concerns about edibles and the dosages that people consume without realizing it. And turning "candy" into "drugs", thus creating issues for young people. (Kinda like the old candy cigarettes that aren't sold much anymore.)
Off topic but I'll bite...
If we had a better voting system, then the party primaries wouldn't really matter all that much. There would be no more voting for the person most likely to beat the guy you hate most on the other side. Instead of literally only having the choice of voting against HRC or Trump, we might actually get to choose a candidate we want.
The problem isn't the candidates. It's the system that inevitably pits these awful candidates against each other as the only choice.
http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Insert here "what could possibly go wrong with a single, national government database of DNA sequences ..."? "C'mon, you know it's the right thing to do..."
yeah, that too!
When I'm president, we're going to have magnificent databases. The best databases, not loser databases like Biden's. Just tremendous, tremendous databases. We'll make Latvia pay for it, and there won't be any Mexican DNA in that database either, until we can figure out what's going on. We're going to have DNA that'll make your head spin.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Seems like we just went through a widely-applauded act to block access to patient records in the name of privacy (HIPAA). National database of cancer patients -- what could possibly go wrong? (hint, the 'national database' of government employees' and contractors' clearance backgrounds, including financial information, criminal history if any, credit cards, etc. got breached last year, courtesy of Office of Personnel Management and their antiquated security measures). I think patient privacy was far better guaranteed before the push to convert all of it to digital media, 'in the name of confidentiality'.
rightwingers rapidly assemble around the opposite - even for ideas they originally proposed.
Mmm... *grabs popcorn*, I am looking forward to watching the republicans become pro-cancer. I can't imagine what the arguments will look like but I bet they'll include the phrase "will of God" at least 50 times.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>So far, the only downsides to cannabis legalization have been prison guard layoffs, and the extra burden on politicians that have to figure out how to spend all the money from dope sales taxes.
So the obvious solution is to use the dope sales taxes to fund employing the former prison guards in public works projects ?
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The right would find a way to make pro-cancer sound like "freedom"... who would have thought.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
In a country of around 200,000,000 eligible candidates, to think that HRC and Trump are the best candidates that could be found is rather worrying...
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Better implement A. C. Clarke's lottery, then?
Ezekiel 23:20
A couple of things:
The Party primaries happened because too many people complained about the candidates from each Party being picked in "smoke-filled rooms" by Party bigwigs.
So, the Party bigwigs pulled one of the biggest scams in history by convincing the States to pay for the primaries.
Note that the Primaries, since they're entirely internal concerns of the Parties should NOT be paid for by the taxpayers, nor should people who are not Party members be involved in them (yes, open primaries are a very bad idea - it really helps when you can help select the candidate for the Party you don't belong to).
As to choosing a candidate you want, maybe if more people actually tried voting for the candidate they wanted rather than voting against the candidate they dislike the most, we'd all be better off. Yes, voting Third Party probably won't get your guy elected (though it should be noted that the Republican Party was a "third Party" when they got that tall, skinny guy...what's his name? Link, or Lincoln, or something like that, elected. But you'll make the two major Parties take notice if a lot of people start voting Third Party - if nothing else, they'll have to adjust their policy positions to be nearer to that Third Party's positions, to try to pull voters back into the barn....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
As to choosing a candidate you want, maybe if more people actually tried voting for the candidate they wanted rather than voting against the candidate they dislike the most, we'd all be better off.
Agreed, but the fact that this doesn't happen is a direct consequence of our voting system. It's something that probably couldn't change even if a majority of people want to change it, because plurality voting (first-past-the-post) inevitably ends in a two party system.
The link I posted is a set of videos that outline the problems, and a potential solution or two (out of many possible solutions).
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
It's not clear that they are talking about full DNA sequences. They will likely follow the Massachusetts rule of reporting only the differences between a cancer sample and the patients normal tissue. It's true that there are potentially important interactions between the mutations in cancer and the patients normal genetic variants but the most important thing is to know what changes caused the transformation to cancer. With a few exceptions, like BRCA1 and BRCA2, it's the mutations unique to the cancer which influence treatment decisions.
Actually, what might be more important than the database itself is the process of enforcing standards for how to describe a mutation. There is actually a standard set by the Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) but it's not followed widely. In journal articles, different authors use different notation for the same mutation and, worse, often don't provide an complete specification. For example, it's common practice to report a mutation in terms of how it changes the protein which it codes for. However, many genes have alternate splicing, which means that there are different versions of the protein. A mutation might appear at a different position (or not at all) in the different versions of the protein.
Note that the Primaries, since they're entirely internal concerns of the Parties should NOT be paid for by the taxpayers,
The voters are taxpayers. It's a vote dealing with elections of public officials. I think primaries being part of the normal voting processes is fine. There are almost always other things on the primary ballots, such as bond levies, school board elections, and initiatives, so the cost is pretty well sunk anyway.
nor should people who are not Party members be involved in them (yes, open primaries are a very bad idea -
I could not agree more.
The "primary system" is not the cause of bad candidates. The cause is that being a politician has become a job with fewer positives than "used car salesman", and perhaps even "telemarketer". The absolute vitriol that appears during campaigns would deter anyone sane from running.