$999 For a Complete DNA Scan, Worth it? 451
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)."
Recommended viewing (Score:3, Insightful)
They may have a nice privacy statement, but that doesn't mean any thing if they aren't really enforcing it. Who knows?
Gattaca, anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Add it to the Christmas list (Score:4, Insightful)
So what's a thousand bucks buy you? (Score:5, Insightful)
A nice call from your insurance company informing you that they are dropping your coverage due to a genetic predisposition for X disease.
Re:No! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Recommended viewing (Score:3, Insightful)
Taking it a bit further, it seems like a good way of dealing with privacy in this area is to hide things in plain sight. Make everyone's data available but assign a unique ID that only the submitter will know. Then you can browse your DNA and everyone else's but no one will know who any of it belongs to.
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?
Re:Recommended viewing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Add it to the Christmas list (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Worth it? Absolutely (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:No! (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't want to know... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Add it to the Christmas list (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Beware early adopters (Score:3, Insightful)
So why exactly should I not expect my DNA information to be archived, cataloged and given to the government at-whim? And since we KNOW that is going to happen, why in the fuck should I spend a thousand bucks for that? As long as they're going to violate me, they might as well at least PAY for it.
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Recommended viewing (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:good news for bio grads (Score:2, Insightful)
A huge gamble if the size of your paycheck is the only criterion you use to judge the success of your career choices...there are others - pursuing what you love comes to mind, for example.
Just food for thought...
Re:No! (Score:3, Insightful)
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 thereafter.
Re:Beware early adopters (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's $1,000 for me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems overpriced to me. I already know I'm at risk for diabetes and heart disease, but I have no idea what breeds are mixed up in my mutt...
-F
Re:Recommended viewing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Recommended viewing (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Add it to the Christmas list (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Blatant Misuse of the English Language (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:Beware early adopters (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:No. (Score:2, Insightful)
IMHO, Watson is no better than those damn trolls that posts comments immediately after articles appear. Sad that he could make a contribution to science, yet still be so immature and misguided.
Re:Gattaca, anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if you interpret it as an argument, rather than a clever/humorous commentary.
If you believe in God and consider Nietzsche presumptuous for believing himself able to comment authoritatively on God's existence, then it's a clever and somewhat funny comment. You can imagine God rolling his eyes at Nietzsche's claim and then after Nietzsche died making the clever comeback -- but this time the statement was accurate.
If you don't believe in God and consider Nietzsche to have been correct, then it seems nonsensical.
If you try to interpret it as an argument for God's existence, rather than a commentary from someone who already assumes God's existence, then it seems circular, weak and largely pointless.
Re:Beware early adopters (Score:3, Insightful)
So your argument is that you're better off *not* knowing?
I disagree. I have a family and a mortgage, and if I'm going to die of something in a few years, I'd like to know as soon as possible, so I can make appropriate plans. Sure, I have to plan for my demise anyway because I could get hit by a bus, and even if I found out I have something that will almost certainly do me in by the time I'm 50, I'd still have to make plans to address the possibility that it won't kill me, but the knowledge would affect my plans.
Honestly, the only reason I can think of for why anyone wouldn't want to know is that they're afraid of thinking about their own death. IMO, those people are the ones who most need the wakeup call, so they can start accepting it and deal with it. Everyone *is* going to die, and the issue should be faced head-on rather than ignored because it's unpleasant.
People who'd prefer to have some support before dealing with such news should have that option, sure. But people who are already comfortable with the fact that they're mortal shouldn't have any trouble with e-mail notification.
Re:Add it to the Christmas list (Score:3, Insightful)
The radiation from a full body CT scan isn't that big a dose, but it has a non-zero chance of causing a lethal cancer, particularly in young people. The chances of having the scan saving their lives is also non-zero, but closer to zero than the cancer risk.
Re:Beware early adopters (Score:4, Insightful)
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.