Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science Technology

Faster DNA Testing 187

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the sorry-sir-i-need-to-stick-you-again dept.
tkjtkj writes "Physorg.com is reporting that a Rochester,NY, company, 'Thermal Gradients, Inc' has produced a new method of DNA analysis that can reduce the required time from hours to minutes that the usual 'Polymerase Chain Reacion' (PCR) takes to produce the large quantity of sample DNA needed to identify the donor. This could,conceivably, make "Instant DNA Identification" a reality! Will air travel now require one to arrive at the airport 5 minutes earlier than usual, to provide a skin-swab sample before boarding the plane?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Faster DNA Testing

Comments Filter:
  • Your DNA (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jozer99 (693146) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:30AM (#14089270)
    Your DNA says you don't have a bomb, so go right ahead and board! Have a nice day!
    • Your DNA says you don't have a bomb, so go right ahead and board! Have a nice day!
      You have no chance to survive make your time
    • acid trip (Score:5, Funny)

      by digitaldc (879047) * on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @09:02AM (#14089387)
      Sorry, but you are not allowed to bring acid of any kind on board, not even Deoxyribonucleic.
      • You know, we talk about nuclear proliferation, but that's nothing compared to biotech proliferation. I think that should be on top of Bush's agenda. Once you can 'write' biological viruses that attack people based on their genetic heritage, that's gonna really suck. How long til another holier than thou Hitler shows up, and decides to purify the world? You don't possess the "officially approved" genetics, so down with you. With all the computer viruses that get written targeting a specific vulnerability, yo
    • Not to mention the idea that the powers that be already have all of our dna on file so they know who is good... as well as the dna of every suspected terrorist. At last... we may be safe!
      • Re:Your DNA (Score:3, Funny)

        by HTH NE1 (675604)
        Not to mention the idea that the powers that be already have all of our dna on file so they know who is good...

        "Been there, done that." -- Santa Claus
    • Chifrudo (Score:2, Funny)

      by praedictus (61731)
      Jones family to service desk please! Congratulations Mr. Jones, the oldest child is yours, the other two have different fathers, but we managed to locate one, he's coincidentally on the same flight as yours. Flight 3485 now boarding, have an nice flight!
  • by conteXXt (249905) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:35AM (#14089286)
    Probably.

  • Accuracy (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kellar (932533)
    anyone got thoughts on likely accuracy? false negs/pos's? speed vs quality? TFA looks too much like an advert to give out this sort of information. (it also uses 'leverage' as a verb.)
    • "(it also uses 'leverage' as a verb.)"

      from Random House College Dictionary (closest one at hand):
      lev-er-age ...v.t. 5. to provide (an investment or equity) with operating or financial leverage.

      And of course it's an advert, it's based on a press release. You can be pretty sure they're looking for capital to bring this to market.
    • anyone got thoughts on likely accuracy? false negs/pos's? speed vs quality? TFA looks too much like an advert to give out this sort of information. (it also uses 'leverage' as a verb.)

      It's just a device that does PCR faster than regular thermal cyclers. The DNA has to be "melted" (strands uncoiled and separated) for the heat-resistant DNA polymerase enzyme to be able to replicate the strands. This is just a tiny instrument with a lower heat capacity and microfluidics capabilities, so they can go from

    • Re:Accuracy (Score:2, Informative)

      by inputsprocket (585963)

      I didn't read anything in the article which says it can amplify DNA like a traditional PCR in minutes. Of course it can only be as fast as the speed of the reaction - 15-30" to efficiently denature a 3kb strand, the speed of the enzyme (~60nt/sec) and of course the primer annealing step - one of the nice things about current PCR (walled tubes) is that the temperature drops to the annealing temperature gradually. If the temperature drop was instantaneous, then you risk mal-annealed primers. At any rate, if y

  • Only 5 minutes?? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SegFaultCM (617569) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:36AM (#14089291) Homepage
    Only 5 minutes? No, check the math. Assume 100 people (though it could be FAR more). Each person needs 5 minutes, so you'd need to be there 500 minutes early (8 1/3 hours). I really doubt they'd have that many machines laying around, so multitasking the scans is an improbability.
    • by Exocrist (770370)
      I imagine that in a facility like an airport, with that many people, they'd have more than one line going. Something like an airport would probably have more than one machine.
      However, that does raise an interesting point about the number of people who can be tested at once.
    • by Stevyn (691306) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @09:04AM (#14089393)
      Jeez, have you no imagination?

      Here's how a system could work. You load people one by one on a conveyor belt. As they move along, you take a blood, hair, or semen sample. Then a machine quickly and painlessly prints a temporary barcode on their forehead. Then they continue to move along the conveyor belt.

      In about 5 minutes, the DNA is determined and compared against a database of known Un-Americans. At this time, a laser barcode reader down the line scans each head and if an enemy of the state is found, they are quickly escorted off either by trained guards or another piece of machinery for re-classification.

      So what's the problem? Barcodes and conveyor belts have been around for years.
      • by yerfatma (666741) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @09:18AM (#14089446) Homepage
        As they move along, you take a blood, hair, or semen sample.

        It takes 5 minutes? Must require two semen samples.

      • Stevyn wrote: they move along, you take a blood, hair, or semen sample.

        If I'm in a hurry, can I just leave my underwear?

        myke
      • s / quickly escorted off either by trained guards or another piece of machinery for re-classification / conveyed further along in extreme comfort, past murals depicting Mediterranean fishing scenes, toward the rotating knives. The last hundred feet are heavily soundproofed, The blood drains into these gutters, and the mangled flesh slurps into..."

        "Excuse me."

        "Yes?"

        "Did you say knives?"

        "Ah, rotating knives, yes."

        "Are you proposing to simply slaughter the suspects? Without trial?"

        "Yes, does that not fit

      • In about 5 minutes, the DNA is determined and compared against a database of known Un-Americans. At this time, a laser barcode reader down the line scans each head and if an enemy of the state is found, they are quickly escorted off either by trained guards or another piece of machinery for re-classification.

        That's terribly inefficient, since you already have a laser trained on their head. If the person is known to be Un-American, just up the power. Seeing the head of one terrorist instantly vaporized will
      • I can totally see this being made into a South Park episode!
    • Re:Only 5 minutes?? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TheRaven64 (641858) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @09:23AM (#14089464) Journal
      Since this is Slashdot, I'll give a computer-related analogy. Once upon a time, there were silicon chips which could do calculations. They did them one at a time, waiting for one to be completed before starting the next one. Then someone came up with the idea of pipelining. You would start fetching one instruction while the previous one was being decoded, and start decoding it while the previous one was executing. Next, someone came up with the idea of a superscalar design - you could have two or more of these pipelines, and as long as a pair of instructions didn't depend on each other, you could execute them at once.

      You see how this fits? You take the DNA sample, let people proceed to the next phase (e.g. baggage checking). Then, you scan their passports five or more minutes later and stop them if their DNA doesn't match.

      • Re:Only 5 minutes?? (Score:3, Informative)

        by AndersOSU (873247)
        Ignoring the fact that this is all impossible becasue DNA analysis consists of more than PCR and that PCR is never going to take 5 minutes - its just the kinetics of the reaction.

        The only real way to get rapid DNA testing is a test that forgoes the amplification step and can identify single strands of DNA. Of course you then have the what if they get someone elses DNA because I just kissed my mom^H^H^H girlfriend goodby.

        If all of those were accomplished I see no problem implementing such a solution, becaus
    • by Killjoy_NL (719667)
      You really think they would only process 1 person at a time?
  • Forget fingerprints and retina scans -- how long before my computer will require my personal DNA authorization to log in? (Actually that wouldn't work. Someone could just steal a few hairs off my pillow and log into my computer!)

  • by Silver Sloth (770927) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:41AM (#14089307)

    If, and it's a big if, this is not vapourware and near instant (a few minutes in TFA) DNA testing is near it's going to add a certain spin to the UK ID card debate. The current use of DNA testing only for major crimes could be extended to practically any crime. And if your DNA profile is on your ID card then placing people at crime scenes will become a doddle.

    Ok, so only those who have something to hide have somethng to fear - yeah right - but it's a significant step towards the Brave New World

    • Ok, so only those who have something to hide have somethng to fear - yeah right - but it's a significant step towards the Brave New World

      DNA testing assumes people don't frame others for crimes. So maybe we'll catch criminals, but don't expect it to reduce the amount of innocent people convicted of crime due to overzealous prosecutors and a public that screams for revenge.

      Psychos and boring people are the only ones who don't want privacy.
      • DNA can easily be planted. Lets make a random scenario.

        You goto a club, fuck some girl (who's high/drunk/out of it but still wants it and makes all the moves), she then waddles home and ends up being raped. Your DNA (and possiblely sperm) is on/in her, so is some other guys. If she doesn't remember you (or others) then you're now up for gang rape charges.

        DNA is seen as some miracle cure, but it's so easy to get a hair, or a bit of spin or whatever. Planting DNA is insanely easy, more so then pinning a crime
        • That sort of thing could already happen. Large-scale DNA testing makes it much more likely that people will be caught up in a police dragnet. For example:

          1. Sweeing a barber or hairdresser's store provides hair from lots of different people. A criminal can simply plant some of this at the scene of a crime.

          2. Spitting in the street is a crime in many jurisdictions. The police could conceivably take a saliva sample and learn who did it.

          3. Worst of all, the probability of false convictions increases dramatical
    • So then I'll have to stop leaving saliva samples everywhere I commit a crime? Shit. And I'd only just got used to the idea of wearing gloves because of this new-fangled fingerprinting stuff.
    • A classic example here is the so called cut hair murder. It is IIRC a murder case from a few years ago where the suspect deliberately left hair near the victim's body. He made a few mistakes though:

      1. It was hair which usually does not have enough material for a good test unless it has been pulled out with the roots.
      2. He cut it and the fact that it was cut was quite obvious under microscope.

      AFAIK the police is still chewing the case and is nowhere near identifying neither the suspect nor the person whose h
    • I do believe one major reason DNA testing isn't used for lesser crimes is because of it's expense. At least here in the states. That said, this quicker method doesn't say anything about being a cheaper method, so I doubt this will make that much of an impact with use in lesser crimes.
    • by samael (12612)
      it's a significant step towards the Brave New World

      Ooooh, when do I get my Soma?
  • by Douglas Simmons (628988) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:43AM (#14089315) Homepage
    Sometimes I envision doomsday scenarios, like getting a call from a pro-life booty-call saying she's having my baby, but my homies done seen her 'round the block. Dig?

    Picture your own scenario. A paternity test is probably the most hostile confrontational gesture one could make toward a woman with whom one's engaged in a relationship; but sometimes, let's face it, it has to be done. What would make this less confrontational would be if DNA testing was quick and easy, not a whole to-do schlep. Just like signing a pre-nup in a world where lawyers weren't needed for that.

    So if paternity testing could be relegated to a "By the way, would you mind" kind of matter, the greater piece of mind could-be dads would have jumping into a shotgun wedding. In short, the quicker we can tweak up the ol' Polymerase Chain Reacion, the more red state skanks we can get with safely.

    • by zerocool^ (112121)

      Not to mention the possibility that CSI will now become something of a reality: Now, they submit those DNA samples to the lab, and get results back in a matter of minutes, when we all know that in reality, forensic investigative DNA testing takes a week or two minimum.

      And good lord, my brain doesn't function at this time of morning - my fingers just wrote "DNS" when I asked them to write "DNA".

      ~W


    • Sometimes I envision doomsday scenarios, like getting a call from a pro-life booty-call saying she's having my baby, but my homies done seen her 'round the block... In short, the quicker we can tweak up the ol' Polymerase Chain Reacion, the more red state skanks we can get with safely.

      Alternatively, after she gives birth to that child of yours, you just might discover that that whole Miracle of Life thang [loudeye.com] has been given a undeservedly bum rap by the Culture of Death.

    • In short, the quicker we can tweak up the ol' Polymerase Chain Reacion, the more red state skanks we can get with safely.

      By safe... You mean with or without the burning sensation?
  • Time rent Gattaca [imdb.com] again...for a creepy "1984-like" vision a world with perfect identity tracking.

    • One of the main premises of GATTACA (IMHO) was that the system could be circumvented by the dedicated.

      Granted, the main character was found out, but that lead to the (again IMHO) main premise of the movie: Genetic testing does not necessarily define one's abilities. Granted, this particular statement is off-topic, but the idea that it can be circumvented is not.

      • yea, the funny thing is-- genetic testing? does define one's ability... the main premise of the movie was FLAWED.
        with perfect knowledge of what every bit does, you don't need statistical projections,
        you KNOW then what the end result will be.

        • The behaviour of complex systems usually can't be predicted perfectly. Not only is the genome complex, but it's only a small part of the equation. There's also womb environment and the experiences you have. The premise of the movie is not flawed. Your genes are only part of the story, and for lots of things not even the important part.
        • Genes are only half the story. Environmental stimuli can turn genes on or off, causing proteins to be made or not made, causing abilities to flourish or remain dormant.

          discussion [personalityresearch.org] here [brynmawr.edu].

  • by achesterase (918544) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:47AM (#14089326)
    Of course, the OP did not mention the huge positive effects accelerated PCR will have on research (particularly in molecular biology and biochemistry). It's fine recognizing new technology's potential for misuse, but this article's summary is just plain FUD.
  • Whoa giddy. (Score:5, Informative)

    by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:48AM (#14089330) Homepage Journal
    They have a tiny oven which can:
    While other miniature PCR devices exist, they are limited in the rate at which they can change temperature, Grover said. "Our first prototype has demonstrated that we can expose the sample to the required temperatures at unprecedented rates," he said.

    Now, lets look at just whats needed to do the PCR reaction (just one of the variations taken from here [nih.gov]:

    If you are using DNA Thermal Cycler (TCI, the DNA Thermal Cycler Model 4800 or any thermal cycler requiring light mineral oil overlay.

            * Place the tubes in the thermal cycler and begin thermal cycling as follows:
            * For the first cylce only, ramp to 96 C for 1-5 minutes to completely denature DNA template then proceed with sequencing PCR steps.
            * Rapid thermal ramp to 96C
            * 96C for 30 seconds
            * Rapid thermal ramp to 50C
            * 50C for 15 seconds
            * Rapid thermal ramp to 60C
            * 60C for 4 minutes
            * Repeat Step 2 for 25 cycles
            * Rapid thermal ramp to 4C and hold. Samples can be started in the evening and purified the next day if necessary
            * Proceed with Purifying Extension Products.

    They might be able to change temperature quicker, but they haven't invented a new way to perform the reaction.

    minor upgrade, no digg.
    • Re:Whoa giddy. (Score:3, Informative)

      by Reblet (671563)
      minor upgrade, no digg.

      Exactly. Having actually performed DNA analysis in the lab, I can tell you that while very rapid temperature changes are benificial, you still need to take some time to let the new DNA strands form. In addition, there's more steps involved in actual DNA analysis (isolating the DNA, running it through a poly-acrylamide gel to get the familiar stipe patterns, etc), some of which can take far longer than the actual replication of the DNA itself. I doubt we'll be seeing machines that
      • CE DNA sequencing is orders of magnitude faster than old-style gel sequencing. For some applications, DNA microarrays can get you the necessary information in a few minutes.

        These days the only people that use acrylamide gels for sequencing are undergraduates with no money.
    • Not only that but current thermal cyclers used for PCR are pretty darn quick at changing the temperature. Maybe they can make them smaller and cheaper, but it's not like they invented the peltier chip...
  • by digitaldc (879047) * on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:51AM (#14089343)
    How long do you think it will be before they start testing people's DNA as part of a job application?

    I can see it now....Trevor wasn't hired because his DNA showed a tendency of autosomal recessive gene disorders and another defect affecting his mitochondrial enzymes.
  • When the hell did we become a society where you need "evidence" incase I do something wrong? Isn't it about time we stopped going "well maybe you'll do something wrong.." and start going "well 99% of people don't do this bullshit, maybe it's best we don't piss them all off for that 1 in a billion chance".
    • so says Turn-X Alphonse:

      Isn't it about time we stopped going "well maybe you'll do something wrong.." and start going "well 99% of people don't do this bullshit, maybe it's best we don't piss them all off for that 1 in a billion chance".

      Or 1 in a hundred chance, based on your own percentage. ;p

      But, no, seriously, I do agree with Turn-X Alphonse. The paranoia in current society is ridiculous. It would be nice to see the majority of society no longer considered to be potential criminals just for existing.

      • It would be nice to see the majority of society no longer considered to be potential criminals just for existing.

        Great! Lets start with gun control laws.
  • Tattoo us already (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mononoke (88668) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:54AM (#14089355) Homepage Journal
    I don't know why they haven't just gone ahead and tattooed serial numbers on the inside of our forearms yet. There's not much difference in the final result.
  • be skeptical (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hey folks I work in this field. Be highly skeptical. Department of Homeland Security is throwing large sums of money around trying to find a biological warfare agent detector that an untrained person can use. Some interesting work has come out of the spending spree - it has also brought out an army of slick talkers with a half baked idea.
  • by sowalsky (142308) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:56AM (#14089366) Homepage
    Many companies have produced faster thermocyclers. And indeed, the rate of heat cycling is a major factor in the time needed for a 30- or 35-cycle PCR. However, what this article omits are necessary wait periods to permit the annealing, elongation, and melting stages in typical PCR. Unless they have also re-engineered a DNA polymerase and can sufficiently prove that denaturation and annealing stages can be completed much faster, we're talking about maybe a 30 to 45 minute decrease in PCR. That's it. I've never seen anything less than 30-30-30 before, even in the smallest of genotyping markers.
    • There's a DNA preparation stage as well, which also contributes to the total time involved in a single PCR reaction. If you're willing to work with slightly smaller volumes, then the LightCycler [roche-appl...cience.com] is something that I consider to be pretty fast already.

      An entire 35-cycle run can be completed in as little as 30 minutes (with 20 microlitre capillaries) or 60 minutes (with 100 microlitre capillaries).

      When you're getting down near that speed, DNA preparation time can take longer than the PCR process itself (especi
    • Unless they have also re-engineered a DNA polymerase and can sufficiently prove that denaturation and annealing stages can be completed much faster, we're talking about maybe a 30 to 45 minute decrease in PCR. That's it. I've never seen anything less than 30-30-30 before, even in the smallest of genotyping markers.

      I agree that this is obviously hype. For starters, PCR is an important part of finger-printing, but it doesn't give you the sequence. It just amplifies the DNA; you might be able to go a d

      • 1. Get sample including DNA. (Can be really fast with a cheek swab.)
        2. Extract DNA from the sample. (Minutes to hours; from a fruit fly, I can do this in an hour.)
        3. Set up the PCR reaction. (Can be automated to be very fast.)
        4. Run PCR. With miniaturization and with some other tricks (see below) this can get quite fast.
        5. Interpret what you've got. If you're doing this via sequencing, add (currently) hours to the pro

  • The company plans to leverage its patented technology in accelerated thermal cycling through licensing and internally developing devices for clinical diagnostics, general biotechnology, bio-defense and other related industries.

    Yay for another patent on PCR technology, only a few months after the original PCR patent has expired. But of course they're only going with the trend -- there's other patents [appliedbiosystems.com] on PCR and associated technologies.
  • by Elrac (314784) <carl@sLAPLACEmotricz.com minus math_god> on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:59AM (#14089373) Homepage Journal
    Confirming identity does nothing toward confirming non-terrorism. The attackers of 9/11 were fully legal American residents, maybe even citizens, and even the most expensive and invasive of identity tests would not have disclosed their terrorist intent.

    Reasons why this would be considered for TSA purposes: (1) It will make some ignorant people feel more secure; (2) It will facilitate all kinds of other investigations, mostly related to the War On Drugs; (3) it will provide another opportunity for pork projects and kickbacks for government officials.
    • Confirming identity does nothing toward confirming non-terrorism.

      Blatantly not-true. Not fully efficient, yes. Has to be combined with other measures, yes. May be insufficient, yes. May not be worth the price, yes. Does nothing, no.
      • Blatantly not-true. Not fully efficient, yes. Has to be combined with other measures, yes. May be insufficient, yes. May not be worth the price, yes. Does nothing, no

        DNA just allows confirmation of identity. If the people committing the terrorist acts are not under suspicion then it does nothing. It is just a matter of context.

        Your comments demonstrate why its so difficult to argue against the reduction in liberty and privacy that the authorities are attempting to implement in the western world. They pr

        • "DNA just allows confirmation of identity" IF done right AND properly watched by well-paid guards. One can easily fool, GATTACA-style, automagic DNA recognition.
    • or maybe you don't, but the OP doesn't work for the TSA. His ramblings are inconsequential.

  •     I would highly suggest renting Gattaca.

       
  • This doesn't seem like as much of a breakthrough as they're claiming. PCR is basically a system where you can amplify DNA by putting it through a series of heating / cooling cycles in the presence of a thermostable enzyme which does the actual amplification. Labs already use expensive peltier heaters/coolers to make this pretty efficient.

    All this company have done is make a machine which heats up and cools down faster. The basic biochemistry is still the same. For most PCR reactions the rate limiting
  • Insurance? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Savage-Rabbit (308260) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @09:02AM (#14089388)
    "Will air travel now require one to arrive at the airport 5 minutes earlier than usual, to provide a skin-swab sample before boarding the plane?"

    I'd worry about other consequences of this technology. For example will it enable Insurance companies to more effectively bill you for every genetic disorder that you are N% more likely to get than the next guy? Yes it probably will, as soon as they refine it into a low cost, high volume, technology to test for various disease causing genes. Insurance companies are aching to use such cost effective genetic diagnostic technology to stick consumers in higher risk groups (which translates in being able to bill them more money) based on their likelyhood to get some genetically caused disease later on in life. There are already many people that are unensurable as a result of having some chronic disease and this technology will swell their numbers. People show no outward signs of a genetic predisposition to get some disease and seem perfectly healty today might become ill or even uninsurable in the future thanks to this technology.

  • Looks like "Gattaca" becoming reality
  • Gary T. Marx (Score:3, Insightful)

    by daigu (111684) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @09:14AM (#14089430) Journal

    I recently read (Fall 2005) an interesting article in Dissent [dissentmagazine.org] magazine from Gary T. Marx on this issue called: "Soft Surveillance Mandatory Voluntarism and the Collection of Personal Data."

    He makes a number of interesting observations on how DNA as a soft means for the collection of personal data - for example, where police go in and ask everyone in a community for a mouth swab "in order to solve a crime" or in airports as the poster suggests. Marx argues for a system based on clearly defined rules based on meaningful consent. These rules could center around questions like: Would the information collector be comfortable being the subject, rather than the agent, of surveillance if the situation were reversed?

    Imagine for a moment a community database of DNA information and the potential for abuse. For example, a criminal might collect hair from a hair brush and plant it at the scene of a crime. Perhaps a swab might be a precondition for health insurance? Etc.

    There are many potential problems with the widespread availability of DNA technology. It is also an issue many of us have not given a great deal of thought. Gary Marx [mit.edu] has some material available online like Technology and Social Control: The Search for the Illusive Silver Bullet [mit.edu].

    If you know of other people addressing this issue that would be worth reading, please reply with a citation or link.

  • Who shot Mr Burns Part 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_shot_Mr._Burns%3F [wikipedia.org]

    "Whoa, hey there, DNA testing takes 6 to 8 weeks ....did I say weeks? 'Cause I meant seconds."
  • They can do this in Rochester but they can't revitalize Midtown Plaza? Oh well, at least they have Radio Shack.

  • The movie Gattaca speculated on a future with instant DNA analysis. The story was people could think of ways of getting around it.
    (Uma was the romantic interest in the movie.)
  • This could be useful for all these prison breaks in texas and other states.
    Of course, I suspect that they are not even using something as easy as fingerprints.
  • Gotta Love It.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hotarugari (525375)
    You gotta love all these new technology companies that claim to have something so innovative that they have to slashdot it. And then when it's all said in done, it reads more like a headline story from the Enquirer or something. The product is supposed to clone people, remove unwanted hair, reverse the aging process, and create gateways into an alternate dimension. In the end however, and after really reading the press release, you're lucky if their so called discovery is capable of making Julianne fries.
  • Until I saw a series of controlled laboratory tests and their results, I'll remain a bit skeptical. DNA isn't your garden-variety chemical and processing it is so tedious precisely because of that fact. Speed in testing DNA may be desireable (look at the trouble they have to go through identifying Katrina or 9/11 victims), but accuracy is more important. It has to be consistant to be regarded seriously as a security device.

    What's more, so they have my DNA and know who I am. How? That data will have to be

  • Scenario:
    1. Skin swab taken, no match...
    2. look up personal information in airline company computer...
    3. link to master DNA database...
    4. governement now owns my personal information...
    5. government bureaucrats gain access to my personal information...
    6. personal information proliferates across governemental systems until malicious info-users gain access to it...

    I think you can see where I am going with this. The day they start something like this is the last day I fly, because IANAT (I Am Not a Terrorist) and deserv

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Working...