Slashdot Banner
Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in
  • Preferences

Book Reviews

Recent reviews from Slashdot readers:

Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus

Comments: 278 +-   New Dating Sites Match People Through DNA Tests on Sunday November 15, @02:27PM

Posted by Soulskill on Sunday November 15, @02:27PM
from the unzipping-your-genes dept.
biotech
internet
science
The Installer writes with this excerpt from an Associated Press report: "A couple of genetic testing companies are promising to match couples based on DNA testing, touting the benefits of biological compatibility. The companies claim that a better biological match will mean better sex, less cheating, longer-lasting love and perhaps even healthier children. 'How many dating services can you think of where they can suggest you might have better children?' said Eric Holzle, founder of ScientificMatch.com, one of the first online dating sites to use DNA. ... The idea is that people tend to be attracted to those who have immune system genes that are dissimilar from their own. Biologists say the HLA genes of the immune system — which are responsible for recognizing and marking foreign cells such as viruses so other parts of the immune system can attack them — also determine body odor 'fingerprints.' And people tend to be attracted to the natural body odors of those who have different HLA genes from their own."
story

Related Stories

Submission: Want A Date? Get A Cheek Swab! by The Installer (1665419)
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

New Dating Sites Match People Through DNA Tests 50 Comments More | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Reply
Loading... please wait.

  • The company name is kind of disturbing (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15, @02:29PM (#30107834)

    "Incest Is Best Inc"

  • Hey baby... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15, @02:31PM (#30107858)
    Nice genes...

  • Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shrtcircuit (936357) on Sunday November 15, @02:31PM (#30107862)
    Yeah... Submit your DNA profile to a for-profit corporation that lets you do things with it through a web interface. Your info will never be hacked. Your info will never be sold. Your info will never be given to government agencies. Trust us.

    What could possibly go wrong here?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Who cares if people have your DNA info? What's it good for? They can't use it to take your money or anything, you tinfoil-hatter.

      • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Sunday November 15, @03:02PM (#30108244) Journal
        While the science is still in its infancy, there are already a fair few bits of genome that your insurance company would probably enjoy having a look at.

      • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by commodore64_love (1445365) on Sunday November 15, @04:01PM (#30108848)

        >>>DNA info? What's it good for?

        Watch the movie GATTACA where people were denied jobs (or vice-versa promoted) strictly based upon their DNA. The ability for bosses, politicians, whoever to just look at your "program code" and filter for the best candidate is dangerous. It takes away opportunity who may be slightly dumber, but with more determination and focus to get the job done. (Again I recommend watching gattaca... one of the best science movies of the last two decades.)

          • Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by khedron the jester (888418) on Sunday November 15, @05:36PM (#30109616)

            I agree that it's not a science movie, but for different reasons: the moral I got from the film is that you can't sum up the whole of a human being by his genes, but that his will plays a part too.

            Hence (IMO) it's an anti-science film, since it tries to show the shortcomings of science and the problems of over-reliance on it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nEoN nOoDlE (27594)

      Your info will never be given to government agencies.

      If the government wants to get into the match-making industry, more power to 'em!

      Seriously, do you really think that anybody cares about your DNA information that much as to hack into this site? There's really nothing that your DNA can be used for that criminals or the government would even want it for at this point. You can't even perform identity theft with it! Is there really a large black market for this information? If someone really wanted your DNA, I'm sure they could get a good sample by going throu

      • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ikegami (793066) on Sunday November 15, @04:23PM (#30109026)

        But what about the idea that information MUST BE FREE?

        Information wants to be free. The claims refers to any and all of the following facts:

        • When information is shared, the sharer loses none of the information.

        • The cost of sharing information information is next to nil if not nil. It is an infinite good. In a free market, it's price WILL go down to zero (regardless of whether you think it SHOULD or not).

        • Information sharing almost always benefits society.

        But must information be free? No, not always. There is value in privacy, for example. So while your DNA information "wants to be free" doesn't mean you should "let it free".

        -----

        You might be wondering how there can exist privacy if information wants to be free.

        Notice that I said the cost of information will drop to nothing in a free market. Privacy can exist by hindering the market for information deemed private. One means of achieving this is through the creation of laws that (artifically) raise the cost of the information (by imposing penalities for inappropriately sharing and using the information).

        Unfortunately, the legal landscape has not yet dealt with DNA sharing in any serious manner. For now, all you can do is hide your DNA. Once it's known by someone else, it's outside your control.

  • Bias Filtering (Score:5, Funny)

    by decipher_saint (72686) * on Sunday November 15, @02:32PM (#30107870) Homepage

    It's bad enough that I'm legally blind but now I can add it to the list of attributes that might reduce my chances of procreating (as if analyst and programmer weren't bad enough).

    Enjoy your gene pool, jerkwads!

  • Untrue (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mikkeles (698461) on Sunday November 15, @02:38PM (#30107970)

    'The companies claim that a better biological match will mean better sex, less cheating, longer-lasting love and perhaps even healthier children.'

    They're lying.

    • What's funny is that the only remotely possible claim is "healthier children".

      And it's easier to do a family medical history than to run the
      stack of gene tests which would give you the same information.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by tonycheese (921278)
        No, the idea behind this company is that people tend to be attracted to people who have different immune system and proteins from them, something that apparently we can tell by smell. The biological reason for this is that our children will be healthier, literally, and everything is just a side-effect from our bodies.

        • Re:Untrue (Score:5, Informative)

          by tonycheese (921278) on Sunday November 15, @04:06PM (#30108900)
          Here [discovery.com], Discovery Channel did an article focusing on Scientific Match and another company doing the same thing that talks more about the science behind it. But, like the Komo News article, it points out that it's not very likely to work with such a small sample size of both people and genes.

  • I see a HUGE hole in this plan... So we can take DNA and build an incomplete profile of it. They want to use these limited profiles to match people for dating.

    But what metric are they going to use to match people?

    If they plan to match similar DNA then I question that since studies have shown that we're attracted to people with different immune systems.

    If they plan to match people with very different DNA then I question that because there might be a huge culture clash.

    If they plan to match people with very s

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by RJFerret (1279530)

      From TFA...

      The idea is that people tend to be attracted to those who have immune system genes that are dissimilar from their own.

      Which has been correlated to body odor, I remember from past studies (or a past study), and was referenced in TFA.

      But it's a well balanced article, they poke holes in it and share the 'just a money making ploy' contrary side of researchers who found happily married couples with similar immune systems instead of complementary.

      In similar news, I'm starting a match making service based upon environmental chemical exposures.

      • Selective quotation (Score:4, Funny)

        by Kell Bengal (711123) on Sunday November 15, @03:10PM (#30108326)

        And people tend to be attracted to the natural body odors

        I think slashdotters would have this market cornered.

      • contrary side of researchers who found happily married couples with similar immune systems instead of complementary

        In any system there's going to be some variance. Sometimes, female birds of paradise don't choose the male with the most elaborate tail; sometimes they choose the ratty, haggard male. That's not to say that the tail is useless in attracting mates. It's the `average behaviour` we're interested in, and several studies have shown that on average, humans (and dozens of other species as far remove

      • Alcohol is the best environmental chemical. (Score:5, Funny)

        by Behrooz (302401) on Sunday November 15, @03:37PM (#30108600)

        In similar news, I'm starting a match making service based upon environmental chemical exposures.

        Hey, exposure to ethyl alcohol is strongly correlated to time of conception for a majority of slashdotters.

  • I don't think I would ever want to date anyone who even remotely resembles me.

  • READ THE ARTICLE (Score:5, Informative)

    by gurps_npc (621217) on Sunday November 15, @02:54PM (#30108148)
    For those of you that continue to think they are matching similar DNA, if you read the article you will find that they are doing the opposite.

    That is, they are trying to create "Hybrid Vigor" - matching people whose DNA matches the LEAST. Among other things this should reduce recessive traits. No more blond haired/blue eyed children, but also no more hemophilia.

  • Building up a smell/looks/DNA database (Score:5, Interesting)

    by viking80 (697716) on Sunday November 15, @03:02PM (#30108248) Journal

    I would like to see the result of this study:
    -Take the DNA of all freshmen
    -Let the males and females smell each other one by one (in rooms so dark that beauty could be eliminated) and have them rate each other.
    -Let the males and females see and rate each others looks (like a criminal lineup)

    Now throw all that into a computer to find correlation between DNA / smell / looks.

    Now you can build the database to match couples based on DNA. A lot of interesting research could come out ot it too. Exactly which genes likes which genes, and which detest each other. Are there some universally unlikable genes, and what do they code? Are there some universally likable genes, and what do they code?

    • Such a study would be riddled with false positives for any moderate sample size. In order to get statistical power over the whole genome (which is what you're proposing) you'd need a town's worth of data to even begin to correct for multiple tests. Whole Genome Inference is definitely in its infancy, and there's serious questions as to whether we'll ever be able to do it. It's much scientifically safer to approach these things with very specific hypothesis in mind.

  • My anti-social personality and my not desiring long walks on the beach can find me a mate!

    Seriously, I have trouble dating and I've thought about using one of these services, but there is more to a person than their DNA. Plus, we can see much of people's dna from "interviewing" them and their family.

  • The Olfactory Web (Score:3, Funny)

    by Darth Cider (320236) on Sunday November 15, @03:06PM (#30108298)

    This is why the HTML 6 specification will include an olfactory tag, so that biologically compatible people can agree or disagree on the basis of body odor, rather than the meaning of their words. The W3C is also considering the inclusion of an IQ tag, to further facilitate meaningful communication. It is hoped that an advanced markup system will improve the basic functionality of the internet, while also mitigating many of the problems associated with the wrong people getting together online, for understandable but regrettable reasons. The W3C considers the biggest preventable threat to tomorrow's information exchange to be the population of children born as a result of those unfortunate online hookups.

  • I didn't RTFA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MaXintosh (159753) on Sunday November 15, @03:12PM (#30108354)
    I didn't RTFA, because I can proudly say that I was involved in the group that produced MHC mediated sexual selection studies that ScientificMatch.com uses to claim their rationale. A few comments: First, if Scientific match has any wits about them, they'll also consider other information. I don't think anyone's stupid enough to think there's a single correlate to mate selection. But the worry about people who are too different is poorly founded - MHC diversity is strongly retained throughout most human lineages. We've had negative frequency dependant since we were swimming in the ocean, and as a result, if you sequenced any given allele, you'd find that it's just as related to Gorilla sequence as it is another randomly chosen allele. My ex-boss used to have students do this as an exercise to illustrate the point. Because of this, you're just as likely to find someone very MHC (or in humans, HLA) dissimilar next door in these modern, mobile times, than you are in, say, in a distant country.

    Second: They're only (to my knowledge) matching at MHC for disassortative matings, not the rest of the Genome. How is this better than picking someone based on hobbies? Because research actually shows that mating patterns in humans follows this pattern. It is a bit of a crock, since the odds of you picking two people at random with similar MHC complements is low, but let's not get into that. ;)

    Finally, let me just say, I'm proud that so much scientific blood, sweat and tears into understanding the maintenance of the immune system, and what drives host-parasite co-evolution, has been distilled into an online dating site. Forget having worked with a Nobel laureate, this the highest honour a scientist can know. ;)

    • Re:I didn't RTFA (Score:5, Funny)

      by mrsurb (1484303) on Sunday November 15, @03:22PM (#30108456)

      I don't think anyone's stupid enough to think there's a single correlate to mate selection.

      I think you underestimate the market-share of stupid.

      • I don't think anyone's stupid enough to think there's a single correlate to mate selection.

        I think you underestimate the market-share of stupid.

        Okay, aside from people who think all they need is a sweet ride and the chicks will be all over them... :P
        Some groups do oversell correlates, but given how pervasive our MHC findings are, and how ancient the mechanism seems to be, I don't think we're over-stating it.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by dr2chase (653338)
          So you figure dissimilar in the immune system, but similar on the sweet-ride preference?

  • Will health insurance use this to get a nice pre-existing conditions list and black list you?

  • Healthier children is the only thing that could be possible improved there for me. The rest look more related to culture (education, environment, etc) things than to genetic ones. And they put it in the last place, even doubting that it could happen.

    Of course, if both deeply believe what they said (won't be so different from any "predicted" match coming from tea leaves, astrology, dices, numerology and reading hand lines) there are a chance that it will happens, and that is cultural too.
  • So I have to deal with a woman who is genetically predisposed to act like me? No thanks, I couldn't deal with a lifetime of myself.

  • The idea is that people tend to be attracted to those who have immune system genes that are dissimilar from their own.

    ... the 98 lb weakling with chronic asthma, coke-bottle glasses and a physique suited to the chess club is attracted to the 6 foot tall blonde Swedish ski champion goddess.

    Slashdotters worldwide rejoice.

      • Re:Offspring (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15, @02:59PM (#30108214)

        Indeed - Wikipedia states that the US was one of the first countries to start sterilizing "undesirables", all the way back in 1907. Heck, Oregon had a Eugenics board until 1983...

        • Indeed - Wikipedia states that the US was one of the first countries to start sterilizing "undesirables", all the way back in 1907. Heck, Oregon had a Eugenics board until 1983...

          Getting rid of "undesirables" has been around long before the US even existed.

          • Indeed, but even the Spartans tried to select for some sort of meaningful attribute, as opposed to "poor", "Catholic", "black" and so on.

                • Re:Offspring (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by jcr (53032) <jcr@mac.cUMLAUTom minus punct> on Sunday November 15, @05:59PM (#30109792) Journal

                  There's a lot of potential good that can happen from deliberate changes to how we select mates.

                  The key word is "we". WE choose, not anyone else. If you're talking about individuals picking and choosing their spouses, that's their own business. Once you move from that to outside forces choosing for them, it's evil.

                  -jcr

    • ...so you marry your long lost sister...

      Even weirder, assuming my wife is "the one" for me, this genetic method would imply my ideal "second choice" would be my sister in law (whom is single...) and my ideal "third choice" would be my mother in law (whom is single...)

      Somehow, I think the legendary persistence of in-law and mother-in-law jokes would disprove the whole theory.

    • Blue bloods have been doing it for centuries.
Search
When I left you, I was but the pupil. Now, I am the master. - Darth Vader

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.