3 ms·

These data can be used to identify their source. This will become easier as more data becomes available. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15209306 https:/

by Real_S 9y ago

These data can be used to identify their source. This will become easier as more data becomes available. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15209306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15209306 I guess the value of the data depends on who measures its worth. Replicated p-values lead to multiple publications, which are valuable to academics. But these results can still cause misdirection. What is a low p-value worth if it doesn't lead anywhere?

gwern 9y ago
> These data can be used to identify their source. This will become easier as more data becomes available. Yes, so? (The face paper you link isn't a good example of this anyway, since it's so questionable and re-identification already works much better than that based on stuff like haplotypes.) That's not a real risk, not compared to, you know unlocking the secrets of human genetics. And it has little to do with the research databases: DNA is inherently as far away as it is possible to get from being anonymous, once it started becoming cheap, the loss of genetic privacy was inevitable no matter how it was handled. And it's not that big a deal. We will be much better off for it. > Replicated p-values lead to multiple publications, which are valuable to academics. This is very different from what you were just claiming.
- rectang 9y ago
  > That's not a real risk, not compared to, you know unlocking the secrets of human genetics. So, it's you who gets to play god and decide to sacrifice individuals for the alleged greater good?
- Real_S 9y ago
  Unfortunately, GWAS data is unlikely to unlock the secrets of human genetics. We have been in the "post-GWAS era" of genetics for at least a few years now. > And it's not that big a deal. We will be much better off for it. I hope you are right! However, I have doubts. Also, just because sensitive information can be compromised doesn't mean that it should be offered freely.

by Real_S 9y ago

gwern 9y ago

> These data can be used to identify their source. This will become easier as more data becomes available. Yes, so? (The face paper you link isn't a good example of this anyway, since it's so questionable and re-identification already works much better than that based on stuff like haplotypes.) That's not a real risk, not compared to, you know unlocking the secrets of human genetics. And it has little to do with the research databases: DNA is inherently as far away as it is possible to get from being anonymous, once it started becoming cheap, the loss of genetic privacy was inevitable no matter how it was handled. And it's not that big a deal. We will be much better off for it. > Replicated p-values lead to multiple publications, which are valuable to academics. This is very different from what you were just claiming.

rectang 9y ago
> That's not a real risk, not compared to, you know unlocking the secrets of human genetics. So, it's you who gets to play god and decide to sacrifice individuals for the alleged greater good?
Real_S 9y ago
Unfortunately, GWAS data is unlikely to unlock the secrets of human genetics. We have been in the "post-GWAS era" of genetics for at least a few years now. > And it's not that big a deal. We will be much better off for it. I hope you are right! However, I have doubts. Also, just because sensitive information can be compromised doesn't mean that it should be offered freely.