5 ms·
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
by wahern 5y 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 5y agoYour 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 5y agoI 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.