10 ms·
I m glad they use the data, and have volunteered my data to other services as well. This was actually my reasoning for using these services from the beginning.
by seydor 3y ago
I m glad they use the data, and have volunteered my data to other services as well. This was actually my reasoning for using these services from the beginning. It's sad that laws prevent them from giving us health reports.
DNA data is not worth protecting imho, and the benefits from their public use are very big. The DNA degrees-of-separation between any two humans is less than 3, so we are all traceable anyway already, and people should be aware of that. But the science/health benefits that can come out of this remain enormous.
- mfld 3y agoBut several consumer genetics companies do offer health reports. AFAIK it is perfectly allowed to turn insights from studies into personalized reports as long it is clear that this is not diagnostics or medical advice.
- seydor 3y agohttps://int.customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/217696258-Will-I-Receive-Health-Reports- https://int.customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/21769... People can use some external services like promethease. 23andme is likely to have more thorough data however.
- DecayingOrganic 3y agoJust because the benefits of sharing DNA data appear large, doesn't mean we should take potential drawbacks lightly. Imagine this: a future where a specific gene is linked to hard work. Companies start screening job applicants based purely on their genetic makeup -- if you don't have the gene, you don't get the job. Or even more worryingly, imagine the government starts surveillance on a group of people with a particular gene, claiming they're more likely to commit a certain crime based on some obscure study. It would lead to moral and ethical havoc. DNA data might not seem worth protecting right now, but unchecked, the misuse could be catastrophic.
- AndrewThrowaway 3y agoMedical insurance - oh you have cancer/hear attack/etc gene. You premiums skyrocket. Job opportunities - oh so sorry you have bipolar gene... Dictator governments - oh your genes are shit so you are not allowed to have kids.
- seydor 3y agosue the first two, get $$$. This is textbook discrimination i avoid dictator governments , which do it anyway already, just based on phenotype
- squigz 3y agoDon't wanna live in a dictatorship? Just avoid it, simple!
- lopis 3y ago> sue the first two, get $$$. This is textbook discrimination Ah but they did no wrong! They just licensed the AI du jur that functions pretty much like a black box, but just so happens to feed on multiple sources of data from dozens of data brokers. One of those brokers aggregates data from other brokers, including DNA data from DNA services. Meanwhile, all the recruiter saw was "37% match" before reading your resume and moved on.
- ekianjo 3y ago> i avoid dictator governments If you are born in one you cannot really escape thats kind of a big design feature you know
- blunder_chess 3y agoIn the United States, my understanding is that your medical & employment discrimination scenarios are already illegal due to the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrimination_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrim...
- thejackgoode 3y agoI kind of agree with the parent comment that it was stupid on my behalf, but I paid _another_ company to give me medical results from 23AndMe data. And guess what, they got bought by MyHeritage
- theclansman 3y agoI don't understand what are these immense benefits, to catch more criminals? Since when has throwing more people in jail reduced crime? I guess this would stop someone who is plotting a murder but a school shooting is gonna happen either way.
- TFortunato 3y agoParent post said "science/health", nothing about preventing crime or jailing more people
- ballenf 3y agoI don't know about "throwing people in jail", but putting criminals in jail certainly reduces crime rates. As opposed to not putting convicted criminals in jail. But we hardly need advanced DNA profiling to catch 99.9% of criminals (versus just standard DNA matching).
- JadeNB 3y ago> I don't know about "throwing people in jail", but putting criminals in jail certainly reduces crime rates. That's the sort of statement that seems plausible, and even intuitive, but probably needs a citation. It wouldn't wholly surprise me if it were true, though at moral and economic cost; but it would surprise me even less if it were false.
- edgyquant 3y agoIt’s literally self evident that a person in jail can’t commit crimes on the outside. The statement itself contains all the axioms you need, citations are not something required here. It’s like saying a dead baker reduces the amount of bread in a town for that day and you asking for a source
- JadeNB 3y ago> It’s literally self evident that a person in jail can’t commit crimes on the outside. The statement itself contains all the axioms you need, citations are not something required here. It’s like saying a dead baker reduces the amount of bread in a town for that day and you asking for a source You didn't say "reduces the crime rate outside of prison." I assumed that's what you meant, but it's not clear that ignoring the crime rate inside prison is a reasonable statistic. People in prison also, presumably, eventually get out, and a claim that prison officials can accurately deduce the likelihood of recidivism, and whether it has been decreased rather than increased by time in prison, is far from clear. Finally, putting lots of people in prison has an effect on people outside of prison. For example, it is possible—though, again, I don't know; citations are needed—that high incarceration rates lead to more crime outside, since, if a member of a community has a good chance of going to prison whether or not they commit a crime, then prison can cease to have a meaningful deterrent effect in that community.
- suoduandao3 3y agoGotta agree with the DNA Data not worth protecting point. My every evolved instinct tells me to spread my DNAs data as widely as possible. Even if I don't see an immediate benefit I'd be foolish to argue with that kind of track record. There's something important there about the nature of the information economy but I can't fully get my mind around it.
- fritzo 3y agoGreat point. Every one of us now has the opportunity to be open source.
- walleeee 3y agoWhich wouldn't be so bad if we didn't have a massive, unaccountable complex of public and private actors building surveillance and discrimination into the structures of governance. The fact that this is all extremely baroque and often faulty doesn't make it any less likely to ruin your day for no good reason
- JTbane 3y agoI don't know, I'm most worried about law enforcement abusing access to DNA data, and courts being absolutely convinces of a 0% false positive rate. We may see a wrongful conviction based on DNA dragnet eventually. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12570198/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12570198/
- AlwaysRock 3y agoYeah... I kind of dont care? Use my DNA to do whatever good you can with it. I can see how someone could use this maliciously, but there are far simpler ways to mess with someone's life. 23andMe also has an opt out check box, right?
- lm28469 3y ago> Yeah... I kind of dont care? Use my DNA to do whatever good you can with it Like decline you health insurance because of high probability of cancer or other issues ?
- AlwaysRock 3y agoWell I don't think that qualifies as good. But if we make cancer easier to treat because of my DNA then I'm happy for it to be used.