digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at wired.com —

Personal Genome Project Could Unlock the Mysteries of Life

wired.com — Imagine that we could collect complete sets of data - genotype and phenotype - for a whole population. You would very quickly begin to see meaningful and powerful correlations between particular genetic sequences and particular physical characteristics, from height and hair color to disease risk and personality. The PGP has begun to explore this.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • MurphyWatson, on 07/27/2008, -12/+19I can see this being used more to segregate people and jack their insurance up.
    • FirstDigg, on 07/27/2008, -0/+11Yeah insurance is the classic reason why you wouldn't want to participate in something like this, and while the data will only be made available anonymously, the creator of the site still acknowledges that there is no real guarantee of privacy.

      "As Church sees it, any guarantee of privacy is false; there is no way to ensure that a bad actor won't tap into a system and, once there, manage to extract bits of personal information. After all, even de-identified data is subject to misuse: Latanya Sweeney, a computer scientist at Carnegie Mellon University, demonstrated the ease of "re-identification" by cross-referencing anonymized health-insurance records with voter registration rolls. (She found former Massachusetts governor William Weld's medical files by cross-referencing his birth date, zip code, and sex.)"

      But beyond the insurance risk, the information gathered from this could be of great help to scientists, geneticists, genealogists, and plain old human curiosity. Do the risks outweigh the benefits? I don't know. Am I considering being a part of the project? Yep.
      • ricker2005, on 07/27/2008, -0/+6Congress was already working on a bill that would essentially make it illegal to descriminate based on your genetic code, particularly for insurance companies. Hopefully it gets passed sooner rather than later because the amount of useful information that could come out of this kind of project is almost absurd. And we don't want to lose out because we're worried about insurance companies screwing us over.
      • GiggleStick, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3I think that the same could be said for many medical advancements in the past. A test for cancer, or heart disease for example. The only real difference is that before we would test for a condition that was happening now or in the very near future, and with DNA you can tell things that might happen decades from now.
      • shellyadams, on 07/27/2008, -0/+4There are laws that prevent people from using your personal information for identity theft, but that doesn't stop anyone. This is different than a social security or credit card number. It is much harder to change your DNA.
    • wunksta, on 07/27/2008, -1/+7ever watch gattaca or island?
      a genetic dystopia would be horrible. if its used to benefit all then its great but given our track record we havent done so well.

      seeing as how corporations can gm plant seeds so that they dont produce additional seeds to maximize profits and how this hasnt sparked an outrage shows that profits are king, even at the expensive of human life.
    • turpialito, on 07/27/2008, -0/+4Why are you digging MurphyWatson down? Think he's wrong? Think again.
    • microchp, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2It has already been done. I challenged the USAF on this very issue and escalated it to HQ. Al Gore worked on it for a bit. I stalled them long enough to the point I was able to get out, but seven marines that refused were not so lucky. They took the wrong approach regardless.

      People started off with the tinfoil nonsense saying "What, are you afraid we are going to clone you?". My response was always "No, you should be afraid if someone clones me. I am concerned for the privacy of this data and the privacy of my fellow military members. Just because people swear in does not mean you own them." The area defense counsel agreed with me on this matter. I still have stacks and stacks of responses to my FOIA requests that went all the way to congress and on every occasion came back with answers more generic than statements made in car commercials.

      Many years later there are still no laws in place to protect peoples genome map. Once it is out there, you can't get it back.

  • falloutsyndrome, on 07/27/2008, -5/+8I'll probably join the project. I'm a fan of the greater good, and I'm far too trusting.
    • turpialito, on 07/27/2008, -1/+9Dear Mr. FalloutSyndrome:

      I write to you on behalf of General Yoghurtu Oblongo, ex-minister of finance to our beautiful republic of Rupunia... The reason I am writing to you is because due to regime changes in our country our assets run ther risk of being seized by the new government and we wish to transfer the entire $20 million off-shore...
    • DJbushido, on 07/28/2008, -1/+0I trust in the universal sharing of data. I trust humanity. Our ability to reason with this data seems worth risking to me.
  • dd12101, on 07/27/2008, -9/+11My dna is nobodys business but mine, be wary of the capitalists who would use this to classify the entire population.
    • DaffyDuck, on 07/27/2008, -2/+8Then don't allow them to use your DNA. It's your problem that you can only see the possible negative consequences in something that could have enourmous positive consequences.
      • rowjimmy, on 07/27/2008, -0/+4rather i'd say it is a systemic problem with a society where the first thought that comes to mind - and rightfully so - given a possible technological application like this is how it will be misused by corporate interests to pad their bottom line.
      • dusanmal, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2It is not societal problem. It is how the world works (even on an evolutionary level) if someone can gain advantage abusing your info - they eventually will. Only way out is to prevent this insanity from a get go...
      • sardion2000, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2so basically we need to "Destroy all Humans" right? That is how to prevent the "insanity" we call daily life.
      • amfkyeah, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2"Only way out is to prevent this insanity from a get go..." ...and let some other group figure it out, so they can gain evolutionary advantage. Forward is the only way.
    • krnldmp, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3First comes the data necessary to understand how the human genome works, then comes the knowledge and technology required to to remove whatever code you consider defective and replace it with something more to your liking.
  • RicardoWilliams, on 07/27/2008, -2/+2GNome. i miss that game :(
  • dleesgeetar, on 07/27/2008, -4/+3FF7!
  • thesake, on 07/27/2008, -1/+7cool, it could.
    let me know whe it does and i'll digg you up.
  • blackturtleus, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1I happened to be reading this article in Wired just before logging on to Digg. As long as the useful information gathered in a project like this is open to the public I think it's a good thing. BUT the minute big corporations start hording the information and patenting genes and alleles and that sort of thing, I'm not so thrilled! BTW, for detailed info about the mouse genome check out http://www.jax.org/ up in Maine!
  • greensauce, on 07/27/2008, -5/+4lol i read it as "Gnome" i was hoping Ubuntu is the answer to life
    • rowjimmy, on 07/27/2008, -0/+4you do know that ubuntu != gnome, right?
    • nmnnotmyname, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3Gnome can't be the answer to life, it takes too long to select files in it.
  • cheribom, on 07/27/2008, -3/+15Gattaca, here we come. :P
    • teamgwho, on 07/27/2008, -1/+7or Brave New World.

      The problem is that the technology is out there and it's lose-lose.

      If we embrace it, and try to incoroporate the use of such data into out society and our laws, we likely will end up in a Gattaca/BNW type scenario. If we try to restrict it, it will be impossible to do so, and someone somewhere will progress the technology and then do things that we as a society won't be able to control.

      That's not say that there aren't huge benefits to be derived from this kind of research. The problem is that it's application could profoundly change mankind and on a macro as well as a micro level. The lesson from Gattaca was that while we may be headed towards a certain result because of our genetic makeup, we can make choices to affect whether that really happens or not. Whether we end up an alchoholic or get a college degree or whatever is decided not by what we are but what we do.

      If we shrug out shoulders and say "Well I've got a 74% chance of being an alchoholic, ***** it, why fight it?" and go and get drunk, that's not taking personal responsibility. That's not taking control of one's destiny.
    • thereisnostate, on 07/27/2008, -1/+5Ironically at Gattaca type project would be fruitless in a society that has become an idiocracy.
  • ligyron, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2Why is there an entrance exam?
  • dwninjungleland, on 07/27/2008, -1/+5Before this thing gets going, we need to completely revamp the insurance industry in this country.

    The average person will not care whether you have a predetermined likelihood towards diabetes or Alzheimer's, but your insurance company, I guarantee you, will. Change cannot be at the policy level in this country, as these companies will find ways around laws to make millions if not billions of more dollars by not insuring people they see as 'guaranteed' money losses. Change has to be at the societal level, where EVERYONE understands that all this information that pertains to disease has just as much to do with lifestyle and environment as it does with genetic factors.

    I love this idea. It's awesome, and an inevitable next step in unlocking the mysteries of what make us human and will prove indispensable for healthcare. Unfortunately, at this current point in time, with the current state of our society and the way the insurance companies work, mainstream acceptance of this will be the death knell of millions of Americans.
    • stinkingfish, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1In revamped do you mean universal health care?
  • smurfsahoy, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1-voluntary BUT with incentives
    -collect both names and DNA, and conditions BUT keep the names separate completely, only to tell who has participated already. As in, the records are destroyed, and there doesn't even exist any record that links the two, not just "only special people have access to it." The other two pieces of information can be correlated anonymously.

    Follow these two protocol, and you should have a ton of participation, plenty of great research results, but NO loss of privacy at all, no corporate advertising or insurance companies taking advantage, etc., unless you have some bizarre combination of conditions that identifies you (in which case you could just not participate).
    • dusanmal, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2There is no perfectly safe system to do what you suggest. Particularly when huge amounts of money from insurance companies and such are (potentially and likely) involved. The only way is not to do this at all. Otherwise, slippery slope will lead from this noble idea to "Gattaca" like results sooner or later. So, first the personal info bill of rights that bans anyone collecting such information. Than the research...
      • stinkingfish, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1nice speculations but the world may not explode, if we go ahead with the research. ***** that, it's inevitable.
      • smurfsahoy, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1What are you talking about? It's as simple as pie. You go into an office somewhere, sign up to have your information collected. They register your name, etc. and give you a voucher saying you've signed up. They then takea cheek swab or something and seal it in a bag attached to the voucher with a tamper proof seal, which they give to you, swab and all. Then you leave and go home (note: NO DNA HAS BEEN TESTED OR STORED at this point - only sealed up in the bag which you yourself take home.)

        A week later or whatever, you go into a lab, which is not directly connected with the office or anything, and which is not expecting you at any particular time, because you don't make an appointment. They do not ask for any personal information about you at all - only your voucher. You simply fill out a form with your family and your own medical history (no name or anything), and then they take a DNA sample (and compare it to the sample in the voucher to make sure you aren't some guy who goes in and gets money for like 5 different people). They pay you, and give you a copy of your own results. You go home again.

        Virtually zero chance of connecting names and DNA (it would take so much effort to connect the two that it would probably be harder than it is currently to just break into someone's house and steal a DNA sample, so we wouldn't be any worse off).

        The end.


        In regards to the separate issue of insurance companies - insurance companies would probably go out of business if this happened anyway, whether they get the information or not. Think about it - why do you think they would want the information? Because it would allow them to predict almost 100% what people would get, and they could deny service to high risk people. But if this ever happened, the customers would ALSO know their likelihood of getting various diseases, so why would anybody ever buy insurance anyway? If you're high risk, they won't sell you any. If you're low risk, then you don't really NEED insurance, and you know it. So nobody buys insurance. Bye bye insurance companies...

        The only way insurance would work would be if it was federally mandated, and the law forced them to offer the same rate to everybody, or perhaps an income-graded rate. Otherwise known as socialized healthcare.

        OMG! DNA sequencing leads to socialized healthcare! We're all doomed! Except no, not at all.
      • smurfsahoy, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1A simpler way of saying the second half of my comment is that insurance is entirely based upon uncertainty. When you take away uncertainty, you remove the need for insurance. You don't make it stronger.
  • fearziz, on 07/27/2008, -5/+0I Am Legend
  • rjwusa, on 07/27/2008, -4/+10DaffyDuck said; "...Then don't allow them to use your DNA. It's your problem that you can only see the possible negative consequences in something that could have enourmous positive consequences...."

    Do potential 'enormous positive consequences' trump the right to privacy?

    Those who refuse to allow their DNA to be stored in a database will undoubtedly be denied medical insurance or other services. Or, they will pay increased fees for the "privilege" to guard their privacy. It's quite clear that corporate America will get their way over the individuals right to privacy and protection against discrimination. Perhaps such a database will be used as an identifying clearing house, to be used to identify someone when we move to a cashless society. The ultimate control and tracking system.

    I wonder if those who scream the loudest in protest against the perceived eroding of rights from the Bush administration will be equally vocal against the discrimination against those who would refuse to co-operate by allowing their right to privacy to be compromised through the storage of their personal information in a database? Somehow I think not.
    • stinkingfish, on 07/27/2008, -3/+0First off there is a reply button, on the lower left hand screen. Why is every one fear mongering. When personal information is compromised I will be out protesting, I'm not going to be against The research because it could compromise. This ***** is inevitable, The whole neo-Luddite approach it futile.
      • rjwusa, on 07/27/2008, -2/+6Then, using your logic, there should be no problems with the Patriot Act under the Bush Administration. Unless there are abuses, there's nothing to worry about, right? Never mind that the Patriot Act and other 'security' legislated measures are in place, and good luck getting rid of them once they are enacted by congress. But, we won't worry until congress enacts mandates that require 'voluntary' compliance with storing ones DNA information for all to see and potentially abuse. Let's wait until the mandates are in place and the abuses happen before we react.

        "There's a sucker born every minute" P.T. Barnum (1810 – 1891)
      • stinkingfish, on 07/30/2008, -0/+0Fact Bush admistritation is comprimising your rights now.

        Fact Bills just don't happen overnight, without the general public knowing about it.

        Fact Free market does what the Free market like. Goverment is another issue.

        Following your logic we should not have internet, or phones because then it allow's the goverment to inact bills to invade our privicay.

        I if am agaisn't the idea of a gattaca(like) driven goverment. But I'm not agaisn't the progress of the technology.
  • wunksta, on 07/27/2008, -1/+4democratic transhumanism ftw
  • lazerus9, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3Yes!...And to know that Rockefeller holds the patents on nearly all of this research just makes me feel really good! Like all of the really humane genetics studies that they funded in the early 20th century!
  • 3amboo, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2My first child will become just like Solid Snake... dreams really do come true!
    • mr138, on 07/28/2008, -2/+0***** that. My first clone will become just like Solid Snake.
  • lazerus9, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2In case this is the first time that you have heard of the Rockefeller Foundation financing the eugenics movement, I would suggest that you read; "The War Against the Weak" by Edwin Black.
  • teamgwho, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2digg's my start page on safari and I brought it up then my email and all I saw was a bit of the browser behind the email window.

    I thought it said "Personal Hygene Project Could Unlock the Mysteries of Life"

    it certainly would help people understand why some office workers are liked... and others... not so much.

    as for the article. the first line reads "George Church is dyslexic, narcoleptic, and a vegan"

    and I'm thinking... being vegan is some sort of illness?
  • deetank, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2Huh? What was that noise....
  • kiput, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2„What's more, both the software and hardware in the Polonator are open source. In other words, any competitor is free to buy a Polonator for $150,000 and copy it. The result, Church hopes, will be akin to how IBM's open-architecture approach in the early '80s fueled the PC revolution.”

    It's pretty rare to see someone that prefers to help advancing the humanity instead of making money. Dugg for that.
  • SmallBalls, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1DNA backwards is | si sdrawkcab AND
    • N256, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1puɐ qɐɔʞʍɐɹps ıs | sı spɹɐʍʞɔɐq ɐup
    • Niightwitch, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1It all becomes clearer now.
  • Khast, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2I thought the secrets of life was 42. We all know God likes to keep it simple.

    Anyways, it's cool, now the possibility of having children becoming more like a trip to the auto dealerships. We will now have choices of the "Optional equipment" Maybe one day we will have the "Aftermarket hardware" as well.
  • stinkingfish, on 07/27/2008, -0/+0I'm still want to sequence some bacteria in my garage but this is still cool
  • xstarsprinklesx, on 07/27/2008, -0/+7It doesn't seem to mention this in the article, but does in the comments and on the site: there's a $1000 fee to participate. Nothing inherently wrong with that as I'm sure it's an expensive process, but doesn't it seem like this will likely limit the variety of results they'll get somewhat?
    • krnldmp, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2"What's more, both the software and hardware in the Polonator are open source. In other words, any competitor is free to buy a Polonator for $150,000 and copy it."

      Yeah, and its also open source, to the extent that anyone can fiddle with and improve hardware and software components so long as they have 150,000 dollars to get started.
  • Ne007, on 07/27/2008, -4/+1Only then will we be able to find the "terrorist" gene and completely eliminate the people who carry this gene.

    A complete genocide of the "terrorist" gene. Maybe then we won't be at war anymore.
  • darkfate, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2Looks like we're going to need PGP to protect our PGs.
  • florin, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1Until Sylar figures it out.
  • thegrantman, on 07/27/2008, -0/+0This article and the research are incredible...but I can't understand why knowledge of genomes is necessary to be in the study.I'm assuming that anyone with an understanding of the subject is a little smarter than average.Doesn't that skew the results?
  • microchp, on 07/27/2008, -0/+4PGP is already taken. Pick another acronym.
  • screamokid, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1my mom works in george church's lab, the guy who started this, and the human genome project. hes a chill guy
  • Culyt, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1I want to see someone release their genome under the Creative Commons. Child support could be a pain though...
  • facepalmjpg, on 07/28/2008, -0/+0Church, accomplishing great things for science.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.