4 ms·

This should be a good news, because with DNA test you can find some hereditary diseases, but I’m a bit skeptical about the privacy, in particular when I read th

This should be a good news, because with DNA test you can find some hereditary diseases, but I’m a bit skeptical about the privacy, in particular when I read things like this: “Mass DNA Collection in the Tibet Autonomous Region from 2016–2022” https://citizenlab.ca/2022/09/mass-dna-collection-in-the-tibet-autonomous-region/ https://citizenlab.ca/2022/09/mass-dna-collection-in-the-tib... The law will absolutely have to adapt to these changes.

Dracophoenix 4y ago
This will certainly put a damper on the sperm donation market.
- quesera 4y ago
  An individual sperm cell does not contain a full genome. You cannot even reliably determine a donor's hair color, from a single sperm cell. I imagine it's much more difficult to reconstruct a full genome from a sperm donation than from, say, saliva on a discarded cup.
  - chromatin 4y ago
    This comment is misleading, and possibly wrong depending on what you mean by “full genome” (not an accepted technical term). A sperm cell contains one complete haploid genome.
    - quesera 4y ago
      You're right, it's not as simple as I described. But (my bio is rusty) a haploid genome (gamete) cannot fully represent the genome of a diploid human. If you're looking for genetic disorders, these will often be the result of recessive traits, right? So having only half of the chromosome sets is not indicative. That's my example of hair color. With a full genome sequence, you could determine the person's hair color, but with a haploid genome, you could not. If OP's joke is about the privacy implications of sperm donation, then saliva seems more risky.
      - omgwtfbyobbq 4y ago
        From what I've read, recessive genetic disorders tend to be worse, but there are plenty of dominant and polygenic disorders with * varying degrees of penetrance. * This I think indicates some other genetic and/or environmental factors we don't have a good grasp of.
      - d110af5ccf 4y ago
        A single sperm cell can't. But you presumably have an awful lot of them in a single sample. So this seems irrelevant to the privacy concerns being discussed here.
        quesera 4y ago
        ...and that's what I said. It would be more difficult than from saliva.
        d110af5ccf 4y ago
        Yes but in context this is completely irrelevant. The context was originally the privacy implications of donating sperm. And those are definitely real.
      - chromatin 4y ago
        > a haploid genome (gamete) cannot fully represent the genome of a diploid human Correct; my broader point was that when most people refer to a "human genome" it is ambiguous whether they mean diploid or haploid unless specified. Metrics like "3 billion base pairs" etc. actually describe the haploid human genome. > If you're looking for genetic disorders, these will often be the result of recessive traits, right? So having only half of the chromosome sets is not indicative. Often, but not always; there are myriad autosomal dominant disorders, as well as sex-linked disorders which require only a single mutant allele on X > If OP's joke is about the privacy implications of sperm donation, then saliva seems more risky. Here I think both with STR and SNP profiling you are equally at risk (i.e., saliva is not more risky)
  - etiam 4y ago
    As you're probably aware, most people who donate sperm opt for more than a single cell...
    - quesera 4y ago
      Right. Hence "more difficult" than from saliva. Think about it. Each sperm cell gets a random mix of your chromosome sets. There are 2^23 possibilities. But of course you only need to find the matched pair for each chromosome. So you'd only need a few hundred cells. I'm not a geneticist, but that sounds like a much harder genome sequencing/assembly problem than the fully matched set you'd get from saliva etc.
bpodgursky 4y ago
I have an honest question: what are the specific negative consequences you, personally, are worried about if your genome, today, was made completely public?
- giuliomagnifico 4y ago
  For example an insurance company can rise the price of your contract if they know that you are genetically predisposed for some diseases.
  - bpodgursky 4y ago
    I'm asking at a personal level, because in the US this genetic discrimination is against federal law, and I (personally) have 0 fear that an insurance company will seek out and use this information to illegally discriminate against me. Are you worried that companies will not respect this law? Or are you not US based.
    - rnk 4y ago
      It's illegal but companies will figure out a way to work around it. Why can't they just require your authorization as part of getting insurance? You might notice lots of services require you to give up certain privacy rights. I don't want the phone company to sell my location data, I don't want apps on my phone to sell my location data. There are all these tenuous yet successful ways where your right to opt out is overcome. I'm happy to click in boxes in apps, I've done it lots of times, I turn off location history when possible. But because I carry a phone I believe it's certain that some apps somewhere are storing my location. Same for having a recent car with a data modem in it. And then there are license plate readers. I want to disallow all of these things, but the battle is basically lots as far as I can tell.
      - novok 4y ago
        That just means the laws don't have teeth. Often if they do, they straight out say it's illegal to even get 'authorization' or anything approaching it. It would be a straight out ban vs. an "ok with consent" which is what authorization is about. You can't sign a contract to sign yourself into slavery, it's just straight out illegal. And thus you don't see anybody being signed into slavery via contract in the USA, and there many other things that act this way in law.

Dracophoenix 4y ago

This will certainly put a damper on the sperm donation market.

quesera 4y ago
An individual sperm cell does not contain a full genome. You cannot even reliably determine a donor's hair color, from a single sperm cell. I imagine it's much more difficult to reconstruct a full genome from a sperm donation than from, say, saliva on a discarded cup.
- chromatin 4y ago
  This comment is misleading, and possibly wrong depending on what you mean by “full genome” (not an accepted technical term). A sperm cell contains one complete haploid genome.
  - quesera 4y ago
    You're right, it's not as simple as I described. But (my bio is rusty) a haploid genome (gamete) cannot fully represent the genome of a diploid human. If you're looking for genetic disorders, these will often be the result of recessive traits, right? So having only half of the chromosome sets is not indicative. That's my example of hair color. With a full genome sequence, you could determine the person's hair color, but with a haploid genome, you could not. If OP's joke is about the privacy implications of sperm donation, then saliva seems more risky.
    - omgwtfbyobbq 4y ago
      From what I've read, recessive genetic disorders tend to be worse, but there are plenty of dominant and polygenic disorders with * varying degrees of penetrance. * This I think indicates some other genetic and/or environmental factors we don't have a good grasp of.
    - d110af5ccf 4y ago
      A single sperm cell can't. But you presumably have an awful lot of them in a single sample. So this seems irrelevant to the privacy concerns being discussed here.
      - quesera 4y ago
        ...and that's what I said. It would be more difficult than from saliva.
        d110af5ccf 4y ago
        Yes but in context this is completely irrelevant. The context was originally the privacy implications of donating sperm. And those are definitely real.
    - chromatin 4y ago
      > a haploid genome (gamete) cannot fully represent the genome of a diploid human Correct; my broader point was that when most people refer to a "human genome" it is ambiguous whether they mean diploid or haploid unless specified. Metrics like "3 billion base pairs" etc. actually describe the haploid human genome. > If you're looking for genetic disorders, these will often be the result of recessive traits, right? So having only half of the chromosome sets is not indicative. Often, but not always; there are myriad autosomal dominant disorders, as well as sex-linked disorders which require only a single mutant allele on X > If OP's joke is about the privacy implications of sperm donation, then saliva seems more risky. Here I think both with STR and SNP profiling you are equally at risk (i.e., saliva is not more risky)
- etiam 4y ago
  As you're probably aware, most people who donate sperm opt for more than a single cell...
  - quesera 4y ago
    Right. Hence "more difficult" than from saliva. Think about it. Each sperm cell gets a random mix of your chromosome sets. There are 2^23 possibilities. But of course you only need to find the matched pair for each chromosome. So you'd only need a few hundred cells. I'm not a geneticist, but that sounds like a much harder genome sequencing/assembly problem than the fully matched set you'd get from saliva etc.

bpodgursky 4y ago

I have an honest question: what are the specific negative consequences you, personally, are worried about if your genome, today, was made completely public?

giuliomagnifico 4y ago
For example an insurance company can rise the price of your contract if they know that you are genetically predisposed for some diseases.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  I'm asking at a personal level, because in the US this genetic discrimination is against federal law, and I (personally) have 0 fear that an insurance company will seek out and use this information to illegally discriminate against me. Are you worried that companies will not respect this law? Or are you not US based.
  - rnk 4y ago
    It's illegal but companies will figure out a way to work around it. Why can't they just require your authorization as part of getting insurance? You might notice lots of services require you to give up certain privacy rights. I don't want the phone company to sell my location data, I don't want apps on my phone to sell my location data. There are all these tenuous yet successful ways where your right to opt out is overcome. I'm happy to click in boxes in apps, I've done it lots of times, I turn off location history when possible. But because I carry a phone I believe it's certain that some apps somewhere are storing my location. Same for having a recent car with a data modem in it. And then there are license plate readers. I want to disallow all of these things, but the battle is basically lots as far as I can tell.
    - novok 4y ago
      That just means the laws don't have teeth. Often if they do, they straight out say it's illegal to even get 'authorization' or anything approaching it. It would be a straight out ban vs. an "ok with consent" which is what authorization is about. You can't sign a contract to sign yourself into slavery, it's just straight out illegal. And thus you don't see anybody being signed into slavery via contract in the USA, and there many other things that act this way in law.