UC Berkeley Asking Incoming Students For DNA 468
peterofoz writes "The students will be asked to voluntarily submit a DNA sample. The cotton swabs will come with two bar code labels. One label will be put on the DNA sample and the other is kept for the students' own records. The confidential process is being overseen by Jasper Rine, a campus professor of Genetics and Development Biology, who says the test results will help students make decisions about their diet and lifestyle." No word in the story on just what "confidential" means — who will have access to the results, how long they'll be kept, or what else they might someday be used for. Will the notoriously liberal Berkeley campus see this as a service or an invasion of privacy?
Re:Welcome (Score:4, Insightful)
It's for their own good. (Score:3, Insightful)
> Will the notoriously liberal Berkeley campus see this as a service or an
> invasion of privacy?
It's only invasion of privacy if it's done by an evil "corporation" or other capitalist running dog. Everything a liberal organization does is for your own good and only a right-wing wacko would ever suspect one of failing to diligently and effectively safeguarding his privacy (especially when said organization is part of the state of California: you know they have only your best interests at heart and know better than you what you need).
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Once the DNA sample is sent in and tested, it will show the student's ability to tolerate alcohol, absorb folic acid and metabolize lactose."
Not sure if they will test for other things or not, but that's the list provided thus far.
Frankly, I'm not sure you could survive college without knowing those things about yourself...
Re:Both, of course (Score:4, Insightful)
No blacks with guns were filmed and called white racists. The majority of America supports health care reform. The Democrats have tried to be bipartisan, but the Republicans have stone-walled them. The conservative minority is fracturing, going crazy with conspiracy theory fueled rage. The deception from the right wing is astonishing: Obama is a Muslim, Obama is Kenyan, death panels, the list goes on. Meanwhile, Republican after Republican is caught doing the exact opposite of what they preach, usually in bed with someone not their spouse. Who are the deceptive fuckheads, really?
As long as it's explicit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately with most bureaucracies (especially universities), voluntary things have a bad habit of being "required". For example, a student goes in, University bureaucrat just says "and give me your DNA sample." Most students having to go through all the horseshit, including having to give Social Security numbers, probably won't even think to ask if it is in fact voluntary.
Speaking of SSNs, those used to be voluntary and now they're required. And when that happens, school admin folks become very careless with personal data - universities are just horribly incompetent with student's personal information.
Re:I'm torn (Score:3, Insightful)
It's voluntary, so there is no invasion of privacy going on, when you give up your DNA willingly you can't be expected it to be held very strongly in confidentiality. It's kind of like that whole unsecured Wifi debacle.
Where did you get the idea that voluntary = weak confidentiality?
Unlike Wifi, I can negotiate the terms of my DNA's storage and usage.
It's not *really* voluntary. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's voluntary from the college's point of view. The problem is that things that are voluntary from the school's point of view are things that students who are applying are strongly compelled to do. It's absurd, but higher education admissions are a game of signals, and high school students (And their parents) don't want to risk giving the wrong signals when there are thousands of people competing with them. This means that there's a strong incentive do anything "voluntary" on the application.
The school may not even be thinking this, because schools often think students' calculations about how to get in are just over-the-top and absurd. But the schools should be thinking this, because applicants at competitive schools will almost always make those calculations, no matter that the school says "Don't worry about it so much" in the left hand while saying "We only admit the very best!" in the right hand.
Re:Both, of course (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say your wild guess is very far from the truth.
Re:Absolutely UNREAL that the Berkeley IRB approve (Score:2, Insightful)
There is zero reason why it couldn't be voluntary AFTER the students are settled on campus. Putting it in the orientation packet makes the incoming student vulnerable to parental pressure to "volunteer," and sends a message (regardless of the word "voluntary") that this is something expected of incoming freshmen by the University, not something one clueless researcher somehow conned the IRB into approving. It's an outrageous recruiting tactic that should never have been approved, ESPECIALLY for subjects who may be minors at the point of recruitment.
Re:Both, of course (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>Liberals tend to think for themselves
I guess that's why they all share the same talking points: "Let's call them teabaggers." "There are no people of color in the Tea Partys." "Tea partiers are racist." "What he needs is more gravitas." - And so on. I call that mimicking one another, not independent thought.
Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Coming soon to your community; risk assessment of every individual, eugenics, fascism.
Re:Both, of course (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you're right. I think Liberals do think for themselves.
Unfortunately, in the US at least, they are so afraid of appearing politically incorrect or being on record for having an opinion that Jon Stewart might mock that they will parrot whatever the mocha-decaf-latte-frappucino line of thought is on any particular subject. What they think, and what they will say about what they think in mixed company, are frequently at odds. I can't count how many self-professed liberals I have met who become pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and/or pro-Arizona after a few beers.
Conservatives, on the other hand, accustomed to being mocked, have come to wear it as a badge and pretty much say fuck-all exactly what they think, even it cuts against the grain of "established conservative" thought. It's probably stems from the fragmentation of the Republican party under the liberally-spending Bush.
Re:Both, of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but in order for people to be free, we need government intervention. Otherwise, the powerful oppress the weak. That was the whole reason we fought off King George, and we still need protection against tyrants, who now use economic coercion. Wage slavery is still slavery. Wall Street CEOs are the new kings, not Obama.
DO NOT WILLINGLY SUBMIT YOUR DNA!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Kids, DO NOT DO THIS!!! Ever! For any reason! Holy shit, do you have any idea how crazy this is? There are sooooo many ways this information could be used against you, both now and in the future that I could type for hours without even scratching the surface.
Once you give this data away, you can't take it back. You can't control it. You will have no way to know where it goes or who has access to it.
Berkeley students, you should be out marching and protesting right now. Your protests should make national headlines by Friday. Get to it!
Re:I'm torn (Score:5, Insightful)
You said:
It's voluntary, so there is no invasion of privacy going on, when you give up your DNA willingly you can't be expected it to be held very strongly in confidentiality.
There's an interesting related story here [nytimes.com]. From the article itself:
Members of the tiny, isolated tribe had given DNA samples to university researchers starting in 1990, in the hope that they might provide genetic clues to the tribe’s devastating rate of diabetes. But they learned that their blood samples had been used to study many other things, including mental illness and theories of the tribe’s geographical origins that contradict their traditional stories.
We all know what the majority of slashdotters probably think about the tribe's beliefs, origin myths, etc. But the fact is that the researches thought that once they had the material (the DNA/blood), they could crunch the numbers in attempts to answer many questions. But the donors of said material didn't approve all that was done. I'm not trying to say who is right or wrong, but it's a cautionary tale for any organization that wants to conduct research of this kind.
Re:Both, of course (Score:1, Insightful)
I would say 5% of mathematicians appreciate you getting your "less than" sign wrong.
Re:Privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Why did you tell me that? I was living in oblivious happy ignorance until you told me MS has government backdoors in my software. :-( Oh well.
Is Mac OS any better? (falls over laughing)
As for the DNA I wouldn't have any problem giving it voluntarily since they don't know who I am (just a barcode). The problem is that voluntary often evolves into compulsory. SSI was originally a voluntary retirement program* but it quickly became mandatory, and Weekly Tax withholding used to be a "convenience" for workers but by the 1950s it became mandatory too.
*
* Some communities still have voluntary SS, like Amish Americans and state government workers in Arizona (I think it's AZ - have to double check).
Re:Both, of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. Despite the propaganda put out by certain groups that do think in lock-step, liberals are fairly... liberal in their thinking.
Bullshit. Anyone who would ever accept the name "liberal" in the U.S. is already buying into the idea that there is only one possible spectrum of ideas, which goes from "conservative" to "liberal." Most people seem to think that any possible collection of political ideas should be able to be mapped onto that one-dimensional scale. If you actually were thinking independently, you wouldn't buy into this oversimplified (and inaccurate) model.
Liberals don't tend to hold the view that things are perfect just the way they are. Upholding the status quo means thinking the same thing: everything is peachy just the way it is and the old ways are best.
Here's a newsflash -- the reality is that a lot of ideas have been around for a long time. Those who are supposedly "liberal" may actually be wanting to go back to older ideas as well, or older ideas that were rejected in the past for various reasons. If you think that "conservatives" only want things to stay the same, take a look at the "neo-conservative" movement, which has actively tried to change society in the past few decades. In your naive conception of conservative/liberal, is it even possible to have a "neo-conservative"? You might argue that the neo-cons are actually trying to return to some deeper past, but we all know that's just rhetoric -- their idealized past never existed.
Instead, liberals are open to new ideas and new ways of looking at the world, so they tend to be more eclectic in their thoughts and ideals than some other groups.
That may have had some traction in the classic "liberalism" on the nineteenth century. Today, though, the vast majority of "liberals" are just sheep buying into a certain collection of ideas that certain people deem "liberal."
You want to be truly open to new ideas? Start thinking independently for yourself. Analyze every political question from your own perspective and logic, and decide what makes the most sense to you. The standard modern "conservative" and "liberal" positions aren't very consistent and make a lot of assumptions that don't necessarily make a lot of sense.
Re:Both, of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Well there are some aspects of the Democratic Liberal point of view not shared by the 'conservatives', things like jobs should pay a living wage, no one should die of starvation or lack of medical care. On the conservative side, 'let them eat cake', I don't want my tax dollars going to help people, bomb them over there maybe but not here. I'll educate my children in a private school, I don't want to pay for anyone elses education. If I can keep them dumb I can pay them less (the jobs I dont send overseas) and charge them lots of interest on the loans I give them so I can get a big bonus to spend on my house in that gated community.
Yes there is a difference and the unions have fought for decent (not extravagent, not million dollar bonus for poor perfomance) just good pay for honest work. But the conservatives hate that because they see somewhere they can cut out money from the herd for their own back account.
Please keep in mind the dynamics of our system. Business has its voice on these matters (much too much lately). The rest of us need to start to organize so there is a counter balance to the greed.
Re:Both, of course (Score:3, Insightful)
The self employment tax was thought up entirely by democrats. Considering that the vast mjority of people who self employ are the type who would gladly give up SocSec and Medicare in return for that extra 15%, I'm pretty damned sure that counts as stepping on self employment.
Re:Both, of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. So long, that is, as we understand that all forms of concentrated wealth arise from government interference -- landlordism, corporate ownership, inheritance, et cetera -- and eliminate them.
I don't think, though, that you'll find many conservatives arguing that the government's power to issue and enforce land deeds, corporate charters, copyrights, patents, etcetera, should be restricted.
"Smaller government!" has been only a marketing slogan for conservatives, even as federal spending has gone up more under GOP administrations than under Democratic ones [sideshow.me.uk]. For most in the conservative movement, "Smaller government!" means only less regulation on economics parasites like landlords and shareholders, less regulation of pollution and of shoddy, dangerous, and fraudulent goods, and fewer laws to enforce civil rights; but more government power to regulate personal behavior, and more power to back up private privilege.
Re:Both, of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Conservatives love to get angry at liberals, which is why they read liberal viewpoints: simply to have something to justify their anger.
Liberals think that everything is open to debate, and that both new laws and old must be weighed in terms of utility and effectiveness, whereas conservatives think the old ways must not be questioned. But that's just my experience, take from it what you will.
Bullshit. How many people who think differently than say, Keith Olbermann, are allowed on his show for an honest to goodness debate? Compare that to Bill O'Reilly, or Sean Hannity.
Re:Welcome (Score:3, Insightful)
just like the voluntary DNA swabs, giving me all your money or all your accounts and account information is voluntary too! but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Also, someone having this information does mean that they could be compelled to give it up by legal authorities or others. So yes, privacy is a concern.
Re:Both, of course (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know who you spoke to, but liberals often think that their opinions don't make for good public policy.
Many liberals think abortion is morally wrong, would rather not have to deal with gays, and think we should enforce our borders.
However, they don't think they should legislate what medical procedures women should have, they don't think that gays should be legally second class citizens, and they don't think that Lou Dobbs is right about immigration.
Conservatives, on the other hand think that all their ideas should have the force of law.
Re:Both, of course (Score:4, Insightful)
But government IS the oppressor. How else do you explain that I will be fined $950 because I exercised a Pro-Choice decision not to have hospital insurance
Corporations are the oppressor. How else do you explain all the people who simply simply could not choose to have health insurance because no one would take them? How do you explain the people who had health insurance, got sick, and were promptly dropped? How much choice did they have?
So, you're out $950. Big deal. People have lost their lives because of the malfeasance of the health insurance industry. You still have the freedom to complain about it. The dead don't have any freedom at all.
Re:Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
People still believe in the NSAKEY rumor? How cute.
HITN flamebait? (Score:3, Insightful)
With flamebait lines like that, I don't know how you got a +5 insightful.
As far as one-dimensional thinking goes, yes, everybody knows the liberal-conservative axis is just a loose approximation. Assigning the left-center-right label is sort of like PCA [wikipedia.org]. I read liberal blogs often and I note plenty of eclecticism among liberals; they're not sheep. For instance, all last summer and fall there was tremendous kerfuffle about the scope, shape and size of health care reform. There was lots of disagreement among liberals. So, you are mistaken.
Indeed, the vast majority of judgments about "the vast majority" are bullshit. :-)
Re:Privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
[citation and sources please]