13,000 Volunteer To Put Personal Genomes Online 126
Lucas123 writes "The Personal Genome Project, which opened itself up to the public on April 25, has to date signed up 13,000 of the target 100,000 volunteers needed to create the world's first publicly accessible genome database. Volunteers will go through a battery of written tests and then offer DNA samples from which their genetic code will be derived and then published to help scientists discover links between genes and hereditary traits. While the Personal Genome Project won't publish names, just about everything else will be made public, including photos and complete medical histories. Scientists hope to some day have millions of genomes in the database."
Re:Data Control (Score:1, Interesting)
Anonymous Shnonymous (Score:3, Interesting)
Putting your genetic composition online is pretty much uhm... identifying yourself.
Given a name and an entire frickin gene sequence... I'd more quickly rely on the latter for identifying an individual.
Who knows... maybe at some point there will be software that can generate a speculative image of a person baed on the data in genes.
Re:Data Control (Score:4, Interesting)
Nevertheless, I'm all for the advancement of science and am interested in contributing to the project. Who knows, maybe if all the pessimists advance the project, it'll be done properly.
Re:Data Control (Score:5, Interesting)
Good point. However, if they are not asking you for information that can be used to link directly back to you, then the database is waste of time. What will stop the mis-creants from stuffing junk into the data points? What will prevent someone with a low priority condition, to submit as multiple people in an attempt to up the priority of their condition.
Re:Data Control (Score:3, Interesting)
Do they have something on the web site about this?
My reaction when I read the story was (a) Wow, I really want to do this, and (b) what if I'm denied coverage at some point down the road because of it?
As soon as I'm really confident that I won't get burned, I'm in.
Facial recognition (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:James Watson had 20 bad genes (Score:3, Interesting)
"The" discoverer of the structure of DNA was a group of seven people three of whom won a Nobel prize for it .. Watson, Crick, Wilkins, Stokes ,Wilson, Franklin and Gosling
Rosalind Franklin died of Cancer before she could be nominated for the Nobel prize ...
Re:Data Control (Score:4, Interesting)
what if I'm denied coverage at some point down the road because of it?
It's only a matter of time.
Modern insurance policies can deny you coverage due to a pre-existing condition. It won't be long before we're able to identify all kinds of disorders and diseases with a simple genetic screening. Then we just call having a 90% chance to develop cancer a pre-existing condition, and you're screwed.
It is going to happen.
Re:Data Control (Score:3, Interesting)
As for lethal genes, people don't have many that kick in before/during reproductive maturity. You then have another 30-45 years that you might like to live; but for which selective pressures have historically been a good deal weaker.
Re:Great film, wrong conclusions (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I think their reasoning is perfectly sound.
In the movie, there are those who choose not to undergo genetic modification for their child, and have it born as is.
There's also the corporate slant; All this modification costs. How much? As much as people can afford (c.f. the US education system). The thing that then differentiates people is the extent of their modifications, and the efficacy of them. The complete set of high flying mods would cost more than most could afford. The middling mods would be aimed at the general populace, and the basic would be aimed at the 'budget' market. Probably just enough to get rid of the susceptability to cancer, heart defects etc. Nothing to add brain/muscle/lifespan.
Seeing as there's a resource, and only so many places that'll be licensed, you really think they'll give it all away for free?