Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

$999 For a Complete DNA Scan, Worth it?

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:03 PM
from the something-to-think-about dept.
DoroSurfer writes "ZDNet is reporting that 23andme.com will open its doors on Monday, allowing you to send them a cheek swab and have your DNA analyzed for $999 (plus shipping, of course... ;)). So what's a thousand bucks buy you? They can tell you your ancient ancestry, They can tell you what diseases you're predisposed to, They give you a "Gene Explorer" that allows you to do a search in your genome to find out if you have a certain gene (e.g., you just heard on the news that Gene XYZ has been linked to Alzheimer's Disease)."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] California Cracks Down On Genetic Testing 165 comments
genie-out-of-the-bottle writes "California's Department of Public Health has sent cease-and-desist notices to 13 companies that market genetic testing directly to consumers. (We discussed these services when they launched.) Allegedly, under state law, California residents must submit a doctor's order to have a genetic test run. It will be interesting to see if the government will actually succeed in putting the genetic genie back in the bottle, given that all you need for testing is a few drops of saliva. The effort closely resembles US government attempts to block export of strong encryption product back in '90s." A Wired editor has up an opinion piece arguing that his DNA is his business and none of the government's.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by suso (153703) * on Monday December 03 2007, @12:03PM (#21561143) Homepage Journal
    Looks like someone hasn't watched Gattaca [imdb.com].

    They may have a nice privacy statement, but that doesn't mean any thing if they aren't really enforcing it. Who knows?
    • They may have a nice privacy statement, but that doesn't mean any thing if they aren't really enforcing it. Who knows?

      So why bother disclosing your real information? I don't know what the payment methods will be, but signup under an alias and them mail them an untraceable money order. They may have your exact genetic makeup, but if they don't know who you are, your DNA might as well be anonymous itself.

      Taking it a bit further, it seems like a good way of dealing with privacy in this area is to hide thing

      • by macklin01 (760841) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:42PM (#21561675) Homepage

        I know, I know. You could probably just data-mine the DNA itself to figure out individual identities. In the future, if you ever go to another site and put it a few genes (for whatever purpose) that get linked to your real identity, you will be screwed. But hey, how's that any different than data mining Netflix?

        Well, if somebody finds my Netflix data, they may find out my most secret movie preferences. If insurance companies or employers link me to my DNA and discover a genetic pre-disposition to brain cancer or a debilitating disease, I'll never get health insurance again, and the misfortune will probably extend to any offspring as well. And would anybody hire you (and again, your children) if you have a genetic pre-disposition to MS or some other debilitating condition? Prospective employers are already googling for damaging Facebook information; just wait until genes enter the mix!

        Until good privacy protections and anti-discriminatory legislation are in place, we're talking about a whole different level of risk. -- Paul

    • by Frosty Piss (770223) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:16PM (#21561321)

      They may have a nice privacy statement, but that doesn't mean any thing if they aren't really enforcing it. Who knows?
      Wouldn't they fall under HIPAA [wikipedia.org] since this involves medical testing and records?
    • White House seeks to expand DNA database [usatoday.com]
      Citizens, including juveniles who have been arrested for a crime(but not convicted) are being added to the governments DNA database.
        • Re:In Other News (Score:4, Interesting)

          by lupine (100665) * on Monday December 03 2007, @02:16PM (#21562903) Journal
          They don't need to have everyone in the database to effectively have a DNA tracking of all citizens. If one person in your family is in the database [latimes.com] then you are in the database. [usatoday.com]
          In addition to the fee they collect from you this company might be recieving your tax money through an outsourcing program to the help populate the government database or they may strictly maintain client confidentiality until they receive a national security letter [wikipedia.org] from the department of homeland surveillance, but the end result is the same.

          In my previous post I linked to a 4 year old cnn article to show that the government has been using questionable means to populate codis [wikipedia.org] for quite some time now and I doubt that this government intrusion into personal privacy will be exposed until it is too late and the entire population is effectively mapped.
      • by cayenne8 (626475) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:55PM (#21561831) Homepage Journal
        Yeah..I was wondering exactly when the information would be released to the insurance companies, so they can cherry pick people even better than they do now. I've heard anecdotal evidence that they've even turned down people for coverage due to athlete's foot as a pre-existing condition!?!?

        After that...I wonder how long before the various branches of government will require this DNA data be turned over for the US Homeland security national DNA database?? Of course, we won't know about it...this will be required with a national security letter, which will gag the company from even mentioning the requirement.

        More and more I find that Python wasn't just being funny with the skit "The Importance of not being Seen", they were prophetical.....

  • Gattaca, anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Abreu (173023) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:04PM (#21561161)
    Hopefully this wont become mandatory for job applications, like credit reports are in some cases...
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        No. It's just a famous graffito from an Austrian subway. Someone had sprayed "God is dead. --Nietzsche" onto a wall. Then, someone else had come by and sprayed "Nietzsche is dead. --God". It's an example of people doing what we consider unconventional things (vandalism) and creating a hilarious display of participatory culture.

        And yes, I said famous. I have a quotes encyclopedia (Yale Book of Quotations?) that even lists it.
  • by Besna (1175279) * on Monday December 03 2007, @12:05PM (#21561169)
    I'm going to wait for the full genome scan. Early adopters here will be getting much less than the real thing. With X-prize still contests around for genome scanning, it should not be too long. I want every C, T, G, and A.

    After that, I'm all for it. Not even a needle prick is needed.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I'll be all for it once the government wants to pay for it. The telco companies violated numerous laws to "aide" the government in "hunting for terrorists". Government homeland security agent used database information to harass and threaten his ex girlfriend. Google and Yahoo! work with just about any government to do whatever they want against their people, in the interest of better corporate relations with their governments.

      So why exactly should I not expect my DNA information to be archived, cataloged an
          • by JavaLord (680960) on Monday December 03 2007, @03:00PM (#21563485) Journal
            Unfortunately, there's one little hitch. Changing policy requires that many other people agree with you. Perhaps you've had your head in the sand the last few years, but it's a huge effort just to find a lot of people who don't agree that it's a sweet deal to trade some of their liberties and freedoms for perceived security.

            I think what needs to be done on that front is an improvement in rhetoric. For Bush-ites who support such things in the war on terror, I usually gently point out that another president could abuse such laws even if Bush did not. I usually follow that up by asking them how they'd feel if Hillary had the right as president to check out their library records or conduct a warrantless search because they were deemed a "terroristic threat" for being part of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy".

            That usually makes them think a bit. Then I start to talk about Ron Paul.
      • by squiggleslash (241428) on Monday December 03 2007, @01:26PM (#21562273) Homepage Journal

        Never really understood why people consider knowing they're going to die 15 years from now of something specific more terrible than finding out you have six months to live after a year or two of medical prodding and poking.

        As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to know. The sooner the better.

          • by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Monday December 03 2007, @02:07PM (#21562791)

            For that reasons the medical profession train folk for years to deliver this information - to explain what it really means, for you and for your family. To discuss your options. The data should be available,should be affordable, and should be delivered by a professional, not by an email.

            Screw that. Our society has viewed doctors as a combination of voodoo and god for too long. From what I've seen, the average doctor's 'bedside manner' is pathetic enough that an email can't be that much worse.

            As someone who's had to diagnose my own medical problems after 8 doctors failed for a decade, I'll take the information and use it myself, thanks.

  • $99.98
    You come from monkeys
  • by explosivejared (1186049) <hagan.jared@NOspAm.gmail.com> on Monday December 03 2007, @12:07PM (#21561199)
    I'm a 6' 5" muscular, blonde, blue-eyed swede. I can tell pretty well what my DNA is, it's AWESOME, thank you! So no it's not worth a grand.
  • Hmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by moogied (1175879) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:08PM (#21561203)
    Does it say what my metachlorian count is?

    Need information yoda does.

  • Only if... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Billosaur (927319) * <wgrother@optonline.nOPENBSDet minus bsd> on Monday December 03 2007, @12:08PM (#21561205) Journal

    ...it reveals my latent mutant abilities. I'm personally hoping to find out I can generate fire.

  • by haluness (219661) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:08PM (#21561221)
    How long will it be before they "lose" the gene data? Or maybe "share" the data?

    Also given that the CEO is Sergey Brins wife, I wonder whether Google will get involved at one point?
  • Somewhat dupey... (Score:4, Informative)

    by darthflo (1095225) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:09PM (#21561223)
    This has already been mentioned [slashdot.org], except last time the spotlight was on deCODEme [decodeme.com] by deCODE genetics which offers more details (1m vs. 600k "sites" of the genome) for less ($985 vs. $999).

    I'd love to hear about the results, though.
  • by Bearhouse (1034238) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:09PM (#21561239)
    For rich hypocondriacs. More seriously, I wonder what the implications are for the insurance, medical and even dating industries.
    • by kebes (861706) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:19PM (#21561373) Journal

      For rich hypocondriacs.
      Indeed. And therein lies a significant danger.

      For instance, high-resolution full-body scans [wikipedia.org] (a CT scan of every inch of your body) are frequently criticized because they are so accurate and exhaustive that they will nearly always find something. Even a perfectly healthy individual will have a variety of benign masses of tissues which will show up on CT. Some experts have even estimated that a full-body scan will statistically reduce your health (or chance of survival or whatever) since it increases your risk due to unnecessary secondary tests more than it reduces your risk due to early detection.

      Yet many (overly rich?) people want full-body scans because they want to make sure that any possible disease is caught... not realizing that you expose yourself to risk with each medical test.

      I worry this kind of gene-sequencing will do the same thing: many people will see their results, not properly interpret the risks, and go rushing out for secondary tests (some of which have a small danger associated with them). Worse, some people may read their results and change their lifestyle without medical consultation, in order to "manage" a condition that they have not actually expressed yet. (And, again, you can do more harm than good when you try to manage a condition you don't have, at the expense of doing things that would actually make you more healthy.)

      Obviously it's a personal choice if you want to gather this extra information about yourself. I just hope that the companies offering this service make the risks clear and help the customers actually understand the data and probabilities.
      • by GryMor (88799) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:34PM (#21561591)
        The benefit of a 'healthy' full body scan isn't finding current problems. When you do have a problem, already having had a scan when you didn't have that problem, allows a new scan to be much more useful, in as much as you already know what was there ahead of time, and can take a gander at what has changed.
  • by netelder (41) * on Monday December 03 2007, @12:09PM (#21561241)
    deCODEme http://decodeme.com/ [decodeme.com] does this for $985 (intro price) and has the advantage of being based in Reykavic Iceland, out of reach of easy US Govt access. Another (US) company is NaviGenics http://www.navigenics.com/ [navigenics.com].

    Very much worth it if one is interested in learning about and working to minimize one's genetic risks.

  • Misspelling (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mesa MIke (1193721) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:10PM (#21561245) Homepage
    > $999 For a Complete DNA Scan

    The word is "scam", not
    "scan".
  • by The Angry Mick (632931) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:11PM (#21561257) Homepage

    A nice call from your insurance company informing you that they are dropping your coverage due to a genetic predisposition for X disease.

  • by Nerdposeur (910128) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:11PM (#21561267) Journal

    That's a lot of money for a relatively new technology. While I think the idea is cool, I'd rather wait a few years when it's cheaper, works better, and there's more competition in the field. Let the early adopters pay the high fee and the rest of us can reap the benefits when the costs come down.

    And of course, every year we'll have a better idea of what the results actually mean.

    Maybe one day it will be as simple as a home blood-sugar test - "use this combination finger pricker/USB drive to get an instant scan of your DNA!"

  • As anyone who's watched ST:TNG knows [wikipedia.org], a cheek swab isn't completely reliable. You need to have a long needle going into your abdomen in order to get pure enough DNA to make a clone.
     
  • by eclaculator (1197723) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:17PM (#21561343)
    People frequently confuse microarray SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) studies with an actual DNA scan that identifies all 3 billion A,C,T and G bases in the human genome. This $1000 option looks at about 2 million KNOWN sites which vary between people. These mutations are not the ones that actually code for a disease, but because they happen to be NEAR the actual ones that do on the chromosomes, it is assumed that if you have the SNP mutation, you will have the disease-prone variant in your genome as well. The problem with this technique is that it only measures variants that we know about, whereas a true complete DNA scan would be the "gold standard" and provide you with the most detailed information possible. Unfortunately, a true DNA sequencing of this variety runs about $100000.
  • by timcrews (763629) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:20PM (#21561391)
    Our doctor advised us once that we should not do genetic assays unless it was a serious health situation. Anything that you learn in the negative direction may be grounds for future denial of health insurance coverage. If you're just curious -- it is probably better not to know.
  • by Lord Ender (156273) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:20PM (#21561395) Homepage
    As a science junkie (but engineer by day), it seems apparent that genetics technology could be as big as (if not bigger) than computer technology has been for the past twenty years. The problem is, someone with a BS in Software Engineering or Computer Science will start out making $50-%70k, while someone with a BS in Biology will only make about $30k. With those kinds of numbers, a scientifically inclined undergrad would be making a huge gamble by selecting Bio as a major.

    My hope is that services like this will start to provide jobs for our current Bio grads, pushing the salaries up to a level that makes the choice of a Biology major much more desirable. Only then will the genetic revolution really start to take off.
  • by moore.dustin (942289) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:21PM (#21561417)
    While privacy is an issue, I think this sort of thing could an invaluable tool to know more about yourself. Some may want to not know about what they are predisposed to, but I have a hard time understanding why. Sure, you may be hit with something life changing, but those are things I want to know - the sooner the better too. Think of it this way, before you buy are car you should look into its safety, reliability, etc etc. - you look into the investment to know what you are getting into. The same can be said for the DNA decoding - you should know what kind of body you are walking around town with so you can accommodate for any shortcomings nature bestowed upon you.

    You can claim ignorance is bliss, but seeking to be willfully ignorant of a subject is the height of irresponsibility.

    On the question of whether or not it is worth it for $1000... well I think so. Look at things in the long run - you'll have in inside track on those insurance companies.
  • by thealpha (308746) * on Monday December 03 2007, @12:28PM (#21561511)
    Having been previously misdiagnosed with Leukemia and acting on that diagnoses for almost a year, I can tell you that being told that I'm predisposed to something would make every day difficult and worrisome. Shoudl I eat that? Why do I have a headache? My feet are hot, is that a sign?

    I would rather have it surprise me and then live every day for what it's worth. Else you might think you sick and run up a bunch of bills you can't pay when you find out you're fine.
  • by NickCatal (865805) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:30PM (#21561529)
    National Geographic has a project called The Genographic Project [nationalgeographic.com] that will take your DNA and trace the ancient travels of your ancestry. It costs $100+S&H and your data is stored along with an anonymous code only you know (before you send it in.) Then the group takes all of the data it gets and puts it all together to further their research.

    The team behind the project has already collected thousands of samples from people worldwide who have interesting lineages (Indiginous people in xyz area) and found out some REALLY cool stuff.

    The $1k thing seems like a privacy nightmare though.
  • by schwit1 (797399) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:54PM (#21561819)
    What if I sent a swab from a perspective mate to see what genetic anomalies she may contribute to offspring? What if I sent a swab from my child to see what genetic anomalies they may have? In neither case would it be consensual.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      So, for you, information about potential problems leads to worry. Interesting. Would it not help to plan for the worst and live for the best?
    • Re:No! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Loether (769074) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:15PM (#21561307) Homepage
      I have a grandfather with Alzheimer's disease, a disease which if treated early can be very effectively treated extending your life and more importantly to me improving the *quality* of life. This disease begins with no symptoms and progresses slowly going possibly untreated for years. I for one would like the head start.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Ignorance is bliss. On the other hand, knowing that you are endangered of e.g. Parkinson's might be enough motivation to do something about it and maybe, just maybe, doing something about it might decrease the chances of actually suffering of the disease.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Do I want to know if x years from now I'm likely to come down with Parkinsons Disease? Not really, I'd rather just live my life than worry about the future.

      I'd rather know sooner than later if I am going to have a terminal illness.

      For one, preventative measures might make me live long enough for a cure if caught early on.
      Secondly, I wouldn't worry so much saving for retirement or paying off bills. Seriously, it would suck to finally have all this money and then get too sick to enjoy life and die shortly the
    • I live a pretty healthy lifestyle as it is. And I know, based on family history what diseases I'm genetically predisposed. So, this service is worthless to me.

      It sounds like you're the kind of guy this would be perfect for. Send it in, find out you've got some disease that's going to kill you when you're 45... well fuck that healthy lifestyle! Time to smoke, eat trans-fats, lots of red meat, hookers, high risk activities... all the good stuff!

    • Re:No. (Score:5, Informative)

      by FalconZero (607567) * <FalconZero&Gmail,com> on Monday December 03 2007, @12:17PM (#21561335)
      With regard to being 'worth it'. It's also worth noting that despite the article title, this isn't a complete sequence. 23andMe will scan ~550,000 Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs [wikipedia.org]) out of the (roughly) 10 million SNPs humans have, which is again quite different from a complete sequencing of the 3 billion base pairs in human DNA.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        I believe that a full sequence like Watson had could be done for as little as $100,000. If not now, then soon.
      • Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hedwards (940851) on Monday December 03 2007, @12:41PM (#21561661)
        Exactly, and we don't have any particular reason to believe at this point, that those 550k include all of the ones that would be interesting anyways. A complete sequence would be far more useful even before we know what everything does, because later on one could reinterpret the sequence without having to do it a second time.

        One could much more easily go in later and interpret the sequence, than have to do it a second time to fill in the missing gaps.

        Personally, I'm going to pass at least until I can have my entire DNA sequenced. I may even then wait depending upon the level of concern I have for what is done with the information.
      • the most surprising thing i have read so far is that there are still movie theatres charging less than $10!!
    • by eno2001 (527078) on Monday December 03 2007, @01:40PM (#21562451) Homepage Journal
      Ahhh... you seem to be new here. There is a new language that is growing like a cancer. It's called iEnglish. In general it has only a few additional syntactical rules over standard English and a blatant disregard for classic English grammar. Accompanying that are also rules of engagement for internet forums:

      1. If you are below a certain level of intelligence and you think it looks cool, do it. Example: Can u read this?
      2. The rules of standard English are kind of stodgy and don't really hold up well in polls. Just use whatever you think works and most people will know what you mean even if you don't write it correctly. Also make sure to embrace Appalachionics since it has a warm and homey feel that makes you seem like someone people would want to have a beer with: My warshing machine needs fixed. Or... The nukyelar family is important above else all!
      3. Make sure to avoid using more than one or two sentences per paragraph and no more than four paragraphs when writing stuff unless you want someone to think you're boring. Example:

      a. Good writing:

      "That guy's a troll. He sucks donkey dicks

      It's a good thing we're on Digg. None of those crappy Slashdotters.

      Go back to Slashdot you asshat."

      b. Bad writing:
      "Please don't feed the trolls. If you pay more attention to them, they'll keep coming back and lower the tone. The other fallout, is that we have more noise vs. signal if you insist on engaging the trolls. This has been a truism since the beginning of Usenet. I should know, I was there..." (Goes on for ten paragraphs with endless words that are boring, like "truism". WTF is a truism and why should we know?)

      4. Make sure to nip any kind of conversation in the bud that isn't beer drinker friendly. The best way to do that is to instantly refer to the poster as a troll if they say something you don't like. The second best way is to invoke Godwin's law even if it doesn't really fit. The main is to keep people from talking about stuff that sucks. Remember, if it won't play on Spike TV, The SciFi Channel, or G4, then it shouldn't be on line either.

      5. Always ALWAYS A-L-W-A-Y-S use pictures of videos instead of writing. It's so much cleaner and easier to understand than all that messy and archaic mucking about with text. All you need is a photo or video the presents what you want it to say, then a subject like "Amazing thing!!!!" and you're all set. You'll be communicating in the 21st century in ways that would have had Gutenberg himself breaking out into a cold sweat over.

      Welcome to the intarweb tubes. Don't forget to tip heavily!