4 ms·

>if he had already taken steps to prevent it from happening, I’m betting he would’ve mentioned them specifically. It said the studies have to be approved by a

>if he had already taken steps to prevent it from happening, I’m betting he would’ve mentioned them specifically. It said the studies have to be approved by a review board and that the researchers have to agree to destroy or return the samples when they're done. I don't think we should cynically assume "he knows the answer is yes." He may be hedging simply because he knows it relies on the word of the researchers. But biomedical researchers have been sensitized to issues of research ethics much longer than internet/data science practitioners. There can be significant penalties for procedural violations and in my experience people do not tend to play fast and loose with the rules.

sonotathrowaway 8y ago
> that the researchers have to agree to destroy or return the samples when they're done. So just like Cambridge Analytica, and I assume he’s going to appear on tv with that same stupid look on his face when he feigns surprise that he ‘suggestions’ get ignored? >He may be hedging simply because he knows it relies on the word of the researchers. Yea that’s exactly my point. He is literally the person selling this information, and who is in charge. He structured the terms of sale for his benefit. I hold him responsible for the consequences of his actions, irregardless of whether or not he tries to use ignorance or negligence as his defense. Honestly, I am basing my opinion of him on his attempt to convince me that my DNA isn’t personally identifiable. That really summed up his intellectual integrity for me.