Google Looking To Define a Healthy Human 125
rtoz writes: Google's moonshot research division, "Google X," has started "Baseline Study," a project designed to collect anonymous genetic and molecular information from 175 people (and later thousands more) to create a complete picture of what a healthy human being should be. The blueprint will help researchers detect health problems such as heart disease and cancer far earlier, focusing medicine on prevention rather than treatment. According to Google, the information from Baseline will be anonymous, and its use will be limited to medical and health purposes. Data won't be shared with insurance companies.
Data will be anonymous? (Score:2)
Given the revelations from Snowden I see no reason to trust Google or any other large American company.
Re:Data will be anonymous? (Score:4)
Re: (Score:1)
Fat, pasty, full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
While I believe your statement to be true, I think given Google's history and business model it's unwise to assume the risks to the health data that'll be collected come only from government entities. And actually, the thought that the government might get at my health history through this doesn't particularly bother me since they likely already have acquired it legitimately for various reasons.
But Google could easily spin the "limited to medical and health purposes" to include health- and medical-related c
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe most Google ads are for beneficial totally above-board products, you must've been running AdBlock for the past several years.
Re: (Score:1)
And where does the money come from that pays for those ads?
Re: (Score:2)
Relax, this is just two very rich guys being concerned about their own (future) health.
Which is a good, and smart thing.
This has nothing to do with collecting and improperly using sensitive, private data.
Re: (Score:1)
Two very rich guys have concerns about their bodies, and access to information about everyone elses. They get to judge what is improper or not.
No longer need to spam viagra ads (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to worry, spam ads aren't going anywhere. We just get targeted and spammed. Isn't the 21st century wonderful?
The finding (Score:5, Funny)
The baseline healthy person is of mixed race, has 1.93 arms and 2.1 children, and is a hermaphrodite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the results can be highly entertaining, even if only from time to time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's as bad as the colorblind son in Little Miss Sunshine.
Sucks but I can understand the very stringent entry requirements for military pilots.
So it goes - Vonnegut.
Re: (Score:2)
. . . I'm thinking of a fake finger tip, some ketchup and a hilariously "pull my finger" joke . . . with a twist.
"Keep the tip."
Re: (Score:3)
And lives in Asia.
If they're looking to define 'healthy,' the US is not the data pool of choice.
Re: (Score:2)
What they're doing is using data mining to locate biometric readings that aren't frequently followed by a negative health event.
Obviously those metrics will vary a bit on gender, age, and other "healthy" factors that nonetheless influence health.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
All hail our short-armed hermaphrodite overloards!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is almost certain that such information would be abused by ideologues as well as those looking to maximize profit, both at the expense of liberty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What's the use of that, if you have to wait 18 years for her to grow up? Unless you want a future mate for your newborn son?
Re: (Score:2)
Along with a diet of kale and cabbage and a glass of water for each meal, this would be the only politically correct configuration. Anything else would 'offend' some protected group, thus it must be incorrect. I'm sure with state mandated health care, they'll eventually try to enforce this 'standard' on everyone, for our own good of course. In typical leftist brokenness, suddenly "Diversity is disabled for this session."
Re: (Score:2)
Examine the pool of Slashdot users, then assume the opposite.
Promises Meant to Be Broken (Score:3, Insightful)
"Oh that promise to not sell the information? Well, we screwed up and sold it all for $10 Billion. Pay a fine of $10 Million? Sure, that's fair."
More on the story... (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Just make sure you melt down all the prototypes when you're done, we don't need another Lore incident...
Re: (Score:2)
Just make sure you melt down all the prototypes when you're done, we don't need another Lore incident...
Wrong Noonien Singh [wikipedia.org], dude.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, OBVIOUSLY one of us is not spending enough of their time perusing Memory Alpha, harrumph harrumph!
In all seriousness, I thought OP was creating a portmanteau of the two characters. Now I want to know if they're related.
There goes my productivity. Eh, fuck it, it's Friday.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
-1, confusing Frankenstein and his monster.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What? Oh.
Well, mark me redundant then and be done with it.
Re: (Score:2)
That Google will sell this information to insurance companies who will use it to deny insurance to even more people than they already do.
Which is one reason why it is so great that it is now illegal under the ACA to deny insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
That Google will sell this information to insurance companies who will use it to deny insurance to even more people than they already do.
Which is one reason why it is so great that it is now illegal under the ACA to deny insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
Lol, naivete can be funny.
Sure, they can't outright deny you coverage, but what stops them from making your coverage so expensive you can't afford the deductibles? The answer is, "not a damn thing."
Re:Reality is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lol, naivete can be funny.
Sure, they can't outright deny you coverage, but what stops them from making your coverage so expensive you can't afford the deductibles? The answer is, "not a damn thing."
Which is why it's so great that the ACA has rate controls to prevent this kind of thing from happening, and mandates that everybody get insurance, so the many low-risk insured create a pool which makes it possible to cover the high-risk population in an affordable way.
Re: (Score:3)
Lol, naivete can be funny.
Sure, they can't outright deny you coverage, but what stops them from making your coverage so expensive you can't afford the deductibles? The answer is, "not a damn thing."
Which is why it's so great that the ACA has rate controls to prevent this kind of thing from happening, and mandates that everybody get insurance, so the many low-risk insured create a pool which makes it possible to cover the high-risk population in an affordable way.
You don't really believe that, do you? There are already tons of reports rolling in of people being denied treatments, being told that the cost of a procedure wouldn't go towards their deductible, and finding out that their $150/mo insurance program has a $25,000 deductible attached to it.
Some examples:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/g... [newsbusters.org]
A pastor in Iowa, who is covered under ObamaCare, decried “there’s no compassion in the Affordable Care Act,” after he was told just minutes before receiving life-saving chemo that his treatments would not be covered. The pastor’s family has since emptied their savings account and are now $50,000 in debt.
A February 4 Los Angeles Times article detailed the story of California resident Danielle Nelson who was promised by Anthem Blue cross that her oncologists would be covered in her new policy. Diagnosed with non-Hogkins lymphoma last year, a lump was found near her jaw in January. But when she went to her oncologist’s office, the Times reported she “promptly encountered a bright orange sign saying that Covered California plans are not accepted.” Nelson told the Times: “I’m a complete fan of the Affordable Care Act, but now I can’t sleep at night, I can’t imagine this is how President Obama wanted it to happen.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ob... [cbsnews.com]
The Affordable Care Act is turning out to be less than affordable for some consumers.
That’s because many of the plans carry huge deductibles, creating potential financial problems for middle-class consumers. Some “bronze”-level plans, the lowest level of coverage, carry deductibles as high as $12,700 per year for a family of four... The average individual deductible for a bronze plan is a whopping $5,081 per year, according to research provided to CBS MoneyWatch from HealthPocket, a technology company that ranks health care plans.
What’s worse, that represents an increase of 40 percent from the average deductible for an individually purchased plan before the federal health care overhaul, according to The Wall Street Journal.
... and these are just the tip of the iceberg. Things will get worse as the delayed provisions start to kick in.
That said, I don't think th
Re: (Score:2)
You don't really believe that, do you? There are already tons of reports rolling in of people being denied treatments, being told that the cost of a procedure wouldn't go towards their deductible, and finding out that their $150/mo insurance program has a $25,000 deductible attached to it.
Which, no doubt, you believe utterly uncritically.
Re: (Score:2)
I've actually bothered to do some research on the topic, read articles, had discussions with economists and healthcare professionals, talked to people, etc.
I'm guess you have not gone nearly that far.
PS I get what you're implying, and not only is it untrue, it's a weak and childish attempt to marginalize me via blatant mischaracterization of my dissent. If you have empirical evidence to support your position, present it. If all you have is your opinion, please keep it to yourself, or at the least make it cl
Re: (Score:2)
Agree completely that people don't comprehend the ramifications of the enormous deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums in these so-called "low cost" plans. Add to that the tendency toward ultra-narrow provider networks [politico.com] and the resultant increase in risk of balance billing [nytimes.com] by out-of-network providers.
It's astounding to me how far people are willing to stick their heads in the sand to pretend that the current system is, in aggregate, "better" than the one that we already had.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think the concept of single-payer healthcare is a bad one; however I do not believe the current implementation is an effective system that's not designed to bilk average Americans out of money for the benefit of insurance execs and the Congresscritters who love them.
Glad to hear you support a single-payer system. However, the "current implementation" of the ACA is not a single-payer system. It is a government-managed marketplace, with private insurance companies providing the coverage.
If the ACA truly were a single-payer system (like Medicare is) it would be far more effective at protecting average Americans from being bilked by "insurance execs and the Congresscritters who love them."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. That sounds like a good idea. Take a little from everyone and use it to benefit people as they need it. You might not need it now, but others will, and when it's your turn it'll be glad it's there.
Nah, probably too crazy to work.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Only some types of insurance. I have been denied life insurance because of a pre-existing condition, for example (putting my entire family at risk in the process).
This is entirely reasonable. Most life insurance companies require a physical exam before they'll insure you. They also keep tons of actuarial data on health risks already. Google will just be duplicating this -- and probably doing a better job of it, which will likely make it easier for people with pre-existing conditions to get life insurance, not harder.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll start a pool and take odds on that utopian conclusion - I'll bet against it myself.
Would you rather life insurance companies base their actuarial decisions on crystal balls or witch doctors? Personally, I wouldn't buy insurance from a company that didn't use the most accurate and complete health statistics available. Such a company would likely fold before I died and my beneficiaries could collect on the policy.
As far as insurance companies trying to find excuses to weasel out of paying claims, it's pretty fucking hard for a life insurance company to do that, no? Once you're insured,
Re: (Score:2)
That Google will sell this information to insurance companies who will use it to deny affordable insurance to even more people than they already do.
FTFY.
Legally, they can't deny you coverage. What they can do is make your coverage so expensive you can't afford to actually use it.
Google People(tm) (Score:2)
Now, at last! Google People! In cooperation with the Venter Institute.
Lying Republicans want to steal our healthcare! (Score:2, Informative)
Oh wait, it's the detestable Democrats lying. How about that? What a fucking surprise! Lying Democrats? Who could believe this?
Oh course they are trying now to say that the subsidy afforded to states to setup exchanges and withheld from those who do not was a typo. Get that? 1000s of pages and they made a typo. This of course due to a court ruling that says that those who signed up via the federal exchange cannot get subsidies because of - get this - the wording in the legislation - has to stand.
Whic
Re: (Score:2)
This is what happens when no one reads the bills, let alone proofreads 'em.
I know of two customers who'd love to know (Score:2)
The state and its now satellite insurance companies, who'd love to enforce it on the rest of us.
"and now lets see which of us can touch our toes! Right over from the hips, please, comrades!"
"anyone over 45 is perfectly capable of touching his toes!"
You've got that backwards (Score:2)
The insurance companies and the subservient state
There, fixed that for 'ya. You're welcome.
The insurance industry didn't get the largest corporate handout to come from any federal government, ever [wikipedia.org] by accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I bet it's a lot more bilateral than either configuration. The mutual scratching of the backs while they pretend to squabble for the proles.
Re: (Score:2)
one other piece..
It takes a large state to build tyranny, whether its strings are pulled by a bunch of ideological loons, or by runaway corporate interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I bet it's a lot more bilateral than either configuration. The mutual scratching of the backs while they pretend to squabble for the proles.
There is no disputing the incredible piles of cash that the insurance industry invested into Washington over the past several decades. Other than that capital investment (which helps to keep the "right" elected officials elected to office) what did the government have to gain by giving this giant gift to the insurance industry?
From my vantage point this was a killer ROI for the industry. And a massive anal probe for the people.
It takes a large state to build tyranny, whether its strings are pulled by a bunch of ideological loons, or by runaway corporate interests.
I guess that depends on how one defines large. For example few people woul
Google's off the reservation (Score:1)
They can't do everything, which is going to lead them to doing a lot of things suckily.
How do they actually make money to keep those bazillions of servers running? Does anyone ever actually click on those ads?
Sounds like something someone should do (Score:3)
As someone with a science background, I always find it shocking how much random guesswork goes on in medicine. You'd think that we could take a person in, take a bunch of different samples for analysis, test their DNA, run a full body scan, and just find anything that wasn't working the way it should. Ideally, I think our goal should be to be able to find illness even when the patient doesn't know it's there.
It'd be great, for example, if you could go to the doctor and get a battery of tests, and have him say, "Hey, so you've been feeling a bit tired recently, right?"
The patient says, "Yeah, I guess I haven't been sleeping well, and..."
And the doctor interrupts, "Nope. I'm pretty sure the problem is that you haven't been eating enough [whatever]. It's causing too much of [something] in your system, which is causing you to be lethargic."
I would imagine that part of the problem is that you can't establish what constitutes a problematic variance from "normal" until you establish what is an acceptable variance from "normal". You can't establish what constitutes an acceptable variance from "normal" until you have some baseline of "normal".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but are there any examples of our successfully reverse-engineering a system as complex as we are robustly enough to make those sorts of determinations?
I don't know if there is a system as complex as we are, so you're right, it's going to be difficult. On the plus side, we've already been working on the project for a few thousand years, and we started making some real progress in the last hundred years or so.
So... (Score:2)
Data won't be shared with insurance companies... (Score:2)
Because nobody reads TFA (Score:2)
Baseline will be monitored by institutional review boards, which oversee all medical research involving humans. Once the full study gets going, boards run by the medical schools at Duke University and Stanford University will control how the information is used.
Now feel free to laugh derisively at the idiots who didn't read TFA and immediately started screeching about Google invading their privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yah they are going to do this with out thinking of making money for the shareholders some how. Where were you on July 24 2014 when corporations gave up a small change of profit to help out man kind.
Healthy humans = better workers = better pay = more money to spend.
Re: (Score:2)
Profit doesn't mean that your privacy has been invaded.
Patents on genetic tests [nature.com] already exist. This program is a way of developing more tests that can be patented and profited from.
That said, my opinion is that allowing patents on human genes was a bad idea that should have never been allowed to happen, but that's an entirely different issue that has nothing to do with privacy.
Outliers? (Score:1)
In my case, why not? (Score:2)
I'm 61 and in perfect health. Literally, perfect health. Superb lipid profile, low blood sugar, not over weight, no diseases, never smoked, don't drink, athlete level blood pressure, etc. I work my ass off keeping this way.
I WANT the damn insurance companies to discriminate on the basis of "pre existing conditions". Note that the term "pre existing conditions" is an insurance industry ter
Um... (Score:1)
According to Google, the information from Baseline will be anonymous, and its use will be limited to medical and health purposes.
I work in the medical field. Both clinical and research. I've seen what "anonymous patient" data looks like. While it can be done correctly, it almost never is. When I say almost never, I mean under 5% of the time; and that's being generous.
The DICOM data generated by most advanced imaging scanners (MRI, CT. etc) is pretty big. To make matters worse, every vendor (Philips, GE, Siemens, etc) uses more than just the standard fields (tags) to store the unique patient identifiers. They all also use proprietary
Data won't be shared with insurance companies (Score:2)
Unless a fat sack of cash or some sort of swanky government hand-out comes their way...
And then, what then? We have another artificial "universal" measure for determining what "healthy" is? Like BMI supposedly is for weight measurement?
no one here apply for life insurance? (Score:1)
we need single payer health care in the usa and no (Score:1)
we need single payer health care in the usa and not let the GOP take us back to the old system where they will use tech like this to get out of having to pay for just about anything.
easy enough (Score:2)
Use an algorithm to determine if they stick to the 3 major food groups, caffeine, nicotine, and ibuprofen. Parse through their social media interactions to make sure they never get angry because they have killed all of their enemies. And, bot through their pr0n accounts to make sure they have sex regularly.
Good luck (Score:1)