6 ms·

Did you know that the State of California has a DNA sample from every person born in the state since 1983? It's required by law for the hospital to collect it

Did you know that the State of California has a DNA sample from every person born in the state since 1983? It's required by law for the hospital to collect it and give it to the state.

zahlman 1y ago
... The concept of DNA sample collection existed in 1983?
- evanjrowley 1y ago
  https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/tag/newborn-blood-spot-privacy-concerns/ https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/tag/newborn-blood-spot-pr...
- jedberg 1y ago
  They actually started in 1966 (it's a blood spot collection) but they only started keeping it in 1983.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    And what information did they hope to glean back then?
yannyu 1y ago
This is a particularly incendiary way of putting this information out there. What is collected and stored is a small blood-spot sample from a heel prick on a newborn. This is used to test for various kinds of conditions that affect newborns. This isn't a full DNA genome sequence or even any data at all, just the blood-spot specimen. Law enforcement does not have automatic access to this sample, but individual samples have been given to law enforcement through court orders or warrants. There isn't a clear SOP for how law enforcement typically gets this information or how often it's given to law enforcement, but there's been proposed legislation to make this more transparent.
- jedberg 1y ago
  > This is a particularly incendiary way of putting this information out there. Was it inaccurate?
  - yannyu 1y ago
    It's about as accurate a Buzzfeed headline, but I guess that's par for the course on the internet these days. It's not a "DNA sample" in the way that most people would consider it these days, no more than a used cup would also be called a "DNA sample". But to your point, it can still be used for surveillance and tracking. Also, your phrasing is designed to make it seem like a huge overreach, when this act has likely saved millions of lives through early diagnosis of preventable diseases and early intervention on disabilities. I have personally experienced this. So yes, I do think your framing here is inaccurate through omission of key facts.
    - pdonis 1y ago
      > this act has likely saved millions of lives through early diagnosis of preventable diseases and early intervention on disabilities Why does the state have to collect and keep the sample for that to happen? Why can't it be the private property of the parents, provided to whatever private testing labs are used to do the tests?
      - yannyu 1y ago
        That seems like a fair criticism. I don't know enough to quantify the benefit of retaining these samples, but I do know that the reason for keeping samples primarily relates to quality control, research, and development of tests. There is a process for people to have the sample destroyed, I also have no idea how easy or how often that is used.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - rolph 1y ago
    it was misinformation, the DNA in such a sample is not only miniscule and unstandardized, but also not treated for longterm archival specimen retention. the blood "spot" is about general morphology, and antigenic specificity.
layman51 1y ago
Do you have a source? I know there is an index[0] of the information on California birth certificates from 1905 to 1995 and technically, despite the privacy implications, birth records in California are considered "public record". [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Birth_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Birth_Index
- jedberg 1y ago
  https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CFH/DGDS/Pages/nbs/default.aspx https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CFH/DGDS/Pages/nbs/default....
Yeul 1y ago
The trick is that you don't elect someone like Donald Trump. I just read on the BBC that the president of America threatened New Yorkers not to vote for Mamdani. People in the Netherlands trust their government because noone in the 500 years of history has ever gotten close to getting dictatorial power unless you count Napoleon and Hitler.
- pyuser583 1y ago
  Why does Belgium exist? Is it because the Flemish revolted against Dutch rule? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Revolution
- eru 1y ago
  Despite the downvotes you are right that democracies mostly deliver what voters want. And if voters want silly things, they get silly things. It's easy to fret at how dysfunctional and insane politics are. But after you talk to some actual voters (and look at opinion polls), instead you marvel at how comparatively sane policies manage to be---despite voters.
DaSHacka 1y ago
[flagged]
tito 1y ago
I just got back from the Millennium Seed Bank in the UK and was marveling at the size of a small footprint facility that stores samples of more than 10% of all known living plants. Reading this thread, I was curious about what the size of California's sample collection looks like. I made an estimate using a little 1ul vial and an estimated 40 million people born in California since 1930. 100 samples in each box means 400,000 boxes. It's something like a 60 foot by 60 foot room with shelving. If you extended it to a bank of 100 billion (about all humans ever born), that gets you to a pretty low tech solution that stores samples in the footprint of five Costcos.
- djmips 1y ago
  California has been storing the samples in its biobank since 1983 not 1930.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
eru 1y ago
What about people born outside of a hospital?

Did you know that the State of California has a DNA sample from every person born in the state since 1983? It's required by law for the hospital to collect it and give it to the state.

zahlman 1y ago

... The concept of DNA sample collection existed in 1983?

evanjrowley 1y ago
https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/tag/newborn-blood-spot-privacy-concerns/ https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/tag/newborn-blood-spot-pr...
jedberg 1y ago
They actually started in 1966 (it's a blood spot collection) but they only started keeping it in 1983.
- zahlman 1y ago
  And what information did they hope to glean back then?

yannyu 1y ago

This is a particularly incendiary way of putting this information out there. What is collected and stored is a small blood-spot sample from a heel prick on a newborn. This is used to test for various kinds of conditions that affect newborns. This isn't a full DNA genome sequence or even any data at all, just the blood-spot specimen. Law enforcement does not have automatic access to this sample, but individual samples have been given to law enforcement through court orders or warrants. There isn't a clear SOP for how law enforcement typically gets this information or how often it's given to law enforcement, but there's been proposed legislation to make this more transparent.

jedberg 1y ago
> This is a particularly incendiary way of putting this information out there. Was it inaccurate?
- yannyu 1y ago
  It's about as accurate a Buzzfeed headline, but I guess that's par for the course on the internet these days. It's not a "DNA sample" in the way that most people would consider it these days, no more than a used cup would also be called a "DNA sample". But to your point, it can still be used for surveillance and tracking. Also, your phrasing is designed to make it seem like a huge overreach, when this act has likely saved millions of lives through early diagnosis of preventable diseases and early intervention on disabilities. I have personally experienced this. So yes, I do think your framing here is inaccurate through omission of key facts.
  - pdonis 1y ago
    > this act has likely saved millions of lives through early diagnosis of preventable diseases and early intervention on disabilities Why does the state have to collect and keep the sample for that to happen? Why can't it be the private property of the parents, provided to whatever private testing labs are used to do the tests?
    - yannyu 1y ago
      That seems like a fair criticism. I don't know enough to quantify the benefit of retaining these samples, but I do know that the reason for keeping samples primarily relates to quality control, research, and development of tests. There is a process for people to have the sample destroyed, I also have no idea how easy or how often that is used.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- rolph 1y ago
  it was misinformation, the DNA in such a sample is not only miniscule and unstandardized, but also not treated for longterm archival specimen retention. the blood "spot" is about general morphology, and antigenic specificity.

layman51 1y ago

Do you have a source? I know there is an index[0] of the information on California birth certificates from 1905 to 1995 and technically, despite the privacy implications, birth records in California are considered "public record". [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Birth_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Birth_Index

jedberg 1y ago
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CFH/DGDS/Pages/nbs/default.aspx https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CFH/DGDS/Pages/nbs/default....

Yeul 1y ago

The trick is that you don't elect someone like Donald Trump. I just read on the BBC that the president of America threatened New Yorkers not to vote for Mamdani. People in the Netherlands trust their government because noone in the 500 years of history has ever gotten close to getting dictatorial power unless you count Napoleon and Hitler.

pyuser583 1y ago
Why does Belgium exist? Is it because the Flemish revolted against Dutch rule? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Revolution
eru 1y ago
Despite the downvotes you are right that democracies mostly deliver what voters want. And if voters want silly things, they get silly things. It's easy to fret at how dysfunctional and insane politics are. But after you talk to some actual voters (and look at opinion polls), instead you marvel at how comparatively sane policies manage to be---despite voters.

DaSHacka 1y ago

[flagged]

tito 1y ago

I just got back from the Millennium Seed Bank in the UK and was marveling at the size of a small footprint facility that stores samples of more than 10% of all known living plants. Reading this thread, I was curious about what the size of California's sample collection looks like. I made an estimate using a little 1ul vial and an estimated 40 million people born in California since 1930. 100 samples in each box means 400,000 boxes. It's something like a 60 foot by 60 foot room with shelving. If you extended it to a bank of 100 billion (about all humans ever born), that gets you to a pretty low tech solution that stores samples in the footprint of five Costcos.

djmips 1y ago
California has been storing the samples in its biobank since 1983 not 1930.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

eru 1y ago

What about people born outside of a hospital?