4 ms·

The New Scientist article is behind a paywall, but this BBC article from 14 April discusses the connection between Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and multiple scleros

The New Scientist article is behind a paywall, but this BBC article from 14 April discusses the connection between Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and multiple sclerosis. (Note: the article does not mention the study in the New Scientist.) > Studies published this year have convincingly pointed the finger at the Epstein-Barr virus. > "It is very, very strong evidence that this virus is likely to be the cause of multiple sclerosis," Prof Gavin Giovannoni, from Queen Mary University of London... > The crucial piece of evidence has come from the US military, which takes blood samples from soldiers every two years. These are kept in the freezers of the Department of Defense Serum Repository and have proven to be a goldmine for research. > A team at Harvard University went looking through samples from 10 million people to establish the connection between Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and multiple sclerosis. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-61042598 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-61042598

jiggawatts 4y ago
Systematic biomedical science like this is not done enough. Governments should be funding large-scale studies with extensive tests taken at regular intervals.
- giantg2 4y ago
  In theory the consent and privacy concerns are preventing that. Those concerns are practically non-existent for the military.
  - wahern 4y ago
    Presumably soldiers have the same concerns, they're just not presented with the opportunity to refuse. (Or perhaps it's simply opt-out rather than opt-in?) As for myself, I perceive this is a collective action problem compounded by privacy concerns that (IMO) aren't in reality significant enough to outweigh the social benefits of participating in data sharing and trials. So I've been happy to give consent to 23&Me, Kaiser Medical, etc, to collect and use my genetic data. I see it as a civic duty, and an easy one at that, at a time when civic participation is unconscionably low. People seem to think civic participation is supposed to be zero-cost, but it never was. I also realize that the benefits of the data collected so far by 23&Me and Kaiser have been arguably meager, and 23&Me in particular has a rather controversial business model, but excessive hand-wringing over which organization is most "worthy" of my data only adds to the transactional costs of obtaining and using the data.
    - robocat 4y ago
      Your DNA is also shared with your biological relatives. How did you choose to make the compromise between your individual choices and the privacy of your relatives?
      - wahern 4y ago
        I don't recognize the legitimacy of that concern. It's a two-way street and ultimately a wash on a personal level. If you demand that I seek permission I've now also lost bodily autonomy, while at the same time unfathomably increasing the cost of any sort of genetic research. It's a recipe for scientific and medical paralysis where everybody will almost surely lose. I view it much like abortion. Does a fetus have any recognizable interests? Perhaps. But nature makes it impracticable to give both mother and fetus bodily autonomy unless society changes the balance of power. While many societies will choose to limit abortion, I frankly find it extremely unlikely that any will choose to give relatives--even close relatives--a veto power over another's genetic disclosure. At a societal level the costs are clear and the resolution of the dilemma of incidental genetic disclosure becomes a non-issue. Rather, IMO the concern about relatives is just a rationalization for doing nothing while entertaining excessive anti-corporate, anti-capitalist, anti-government paranoia. Moreover, if someone can provide any concrete negative externalities (i.e. beyond the freedom to be paranoid and indignant), societies can address them in particular, much like they did by prohibiting exploitation of genetic data for health insurance, employment, etc.

jiggawatts 4y ago

Systematic biomedical science like this is not done enough. Governments should be funding large-scale studies with extensive tests taken at regular intervals.

giantg2 4y ago
In theory the consent and privacy concerns are preventing that. Those concerns are practically non-existent for the military.
- wahern 4y ago
  Presumably soldiers have the same concerns, they're just not presented with the opportunity to refuse. (Or perhaps it's simply opt-out rather than opt-in?) As for myself, I perceive this is a collective action problem compounded by privacy concerns that (IMO) aren't in reality significant enough to outweigh the social benefits of participating in data sharing and trials. So I've been happy to give consent to 23&Me, Kaiser Medical, etc, to collect and use my genetic data. I see it as a civic duty, and an easy one at that, at a time when civic participation is unconscionably low. People seem to think civic participation is supposed to be zero-cost, but it never was. I also realize that the benefits of the data collected so far by 23&Me and Kaiser have been arguably meager, and 23&Me in particular has a rather controversial business model, but excessive hand-wringing over which organization is most "worthy" of my data only adds to the transactional costs of obtaining and using the data.
  - robocat 4y ago
    Your DNA is also shared with your biological relatives. How did you choose to make the compromise between your individual choices and the privacy of your relatives?
    - wahern 4y ago
      I don't recognize the legitimacy of that concern. It's a two-way street and ultimately a wash on a personal level. If you demand that I seek permission I've now also lost bodily autonomy, while at the same time unfathomably increasing the cost of any sort of genetic research. It's a recipe for scientific and medical paralysis where everybody will almost surely lose. I view it much like abortion. Does a fetus have any recognizable interests? Perhaps. But nature makes it impracticable to give both mother and fetus bodily autonomy unless society changes the balance of power. While many societies will choose to limit abortion, I frankly find it extremely unlikely that any will choose to give relatives--even close relatives--a veto power over another's genetic disclosure. At a societal level the costs are clear and the resolution of the dilemma of incidental genetic disclosure becomes a non-issue. Rather, IMO the concern about relatives is just a rationalization for doing nothing while entertaining excessive anti-corporate, anti-capitalist, anti-government paranoia. Moreover, if someone can provide any concrete negative externalities (i.e. beyond the freedom to be paranoid and indignant), societies can address them in particular, much like they did by prohibiting exploitation of genetic data for health insurance, employment, etc.