Genomics - The new biological science, a decade after human-genome project

http://www.economist.com/node/16349358?story_id=16349358

by joeyespo • 15 years ago

21 7 15 years ago

this technology is very cool, and has a lot of future promise for treating illness and detecting disorders before they manifest themselves.

One thing i an extremely concerned about is what other uses this kind of data will be put to, is your genetic data one National Security Letter away from being put in a government DNA database? I'm also certain that insurance companies would really like to get their hands on this kind of data/analysis. What about certain kinds of jobs, will you be required to submit a genetic profile to prove you can preform your duties?

I think a situation like Gattaca[1] is not too far off if we dont tightly control who is allowed access to this kind of information.

[1]https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gattaca

e: corrected "gattica" typo

hugh3• 15 years ago

Gattaca, not Gattica. It's easy to remember, there's no "I" in ["A","C","G","T"].

On your broader point: yes, there are all sorts of legal problems that need to be sorted out first. Actually there are all sorts of moral problems which need to be sorted out before that even happens. Do we have "ownership" of our own DNA, and what does that mean? Am I allowed to sequence your DNA? You drop dead skin cells all over the damn place, does it make them public property? If I get an exclusive say in how my DNA is used, then what does this mean for my twin brother?

jsarch• 15 years ago

While I completely agree that these questions need to be asked, the public doesn't appear to have issues giving out social data everywhere. E.g., what if we took your questions and replaced "genetic" with "social"?

surrealize• 15 years ago

We've started to address some of these issues with GINA (the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act) which prevents insurers and employers from discriminating on the basis of genetic information.

Time will tell if it's enough; we'll probably have some more legislation once the technology becomes more widespread.

bhickey2• 15 years ago

The Broad is an amazing place, and I'm very grateful for my time there. The folks there simply do remarkable work.

Nevertheless, I'm ambivalent about the size of the grants doled out to the senior faculty there. I've heard post-docs and junior faculty express concerns that it's a poor allocation of resources. For one $25m grant issued to a senior faculty member, you could fund 50 junior faculty for years. If diversification is the only free lunch in finance, why should science be any different?

davi• 15 years ago

I think the idea is that different categories of science might occur at different scales of funding.

50 junior faculty will likely do 50 safe-ish projects which will lead to tenure. 1 senior faculty with 25 million dollars might do something qualitatively different: ambitious, risky, long-term. Or might not, no guarantee. But I think it's a valid exploration of parameter space.

The goal is to make great science happen, not fund the maximum number of scientists.

bhickey2• 15 years ago

The particular example I had in mind had an 18-month time line -- not exactly long term.

I agree with your point about goals. Throw fifty-projects worth of money at George Church and you'll get one hundred and five ambitious, high risk/reward projects.

(Hey fellow alum! Class of '08 here.)

Genomics - The new biological science, a decade after human-genome project

Related Stories