... IDENTICAL TWINS, ALSO KNOWN AS MONOZYGOTIC TWINS SHARE THE EXACT SAME DNA. The only possible differences can stem from individual mutations which could seriously fuck up the embryo stage and there's little chance of such a minor mutation perpetuating once the child is fully developed.
Derp. Yeah. I was too busy studying fluid mosaics to actually process the logic.
The proper ethical thing to do is to obtain a patient's consent if you think their stuff is usable for something. Give them credit in a paper. Royalties? I dunno about that.
I heard once that a relative of HeLa's wanted genetic reparations, basically. I'm premed, so I'm all about the ethics (including but not limited to not being a super-douche), but the establishment of a cancer cell line doesn't mean you get money whenever an ancestor's cells are used.
No, you get cancer if you don't regulate the expression of telomerase somehow. Those cells that need to divide frequently already express high levels of telomerase anyway. If you add to that, you'll get rampant, uncontrolled growth.
If you add to that, you'll get rampant, uncontrolled growth.
Not in and off itself. The cells need to loose feedback inhibition to really be cancerous. Yes I get that their are levels of cancer.
I heard once that a relative of HeLa's wanted genetic reparations, basically. I'm premed, so I'm all about the ethics, but the establishment of a cancer cell line doesn't mean you get money whenever an ancestor's cells are used.
Read the article I posted. They're feel slighted that her cells where used without consent, and John Hopkins has profited from them since. For a while, they didn't even know which patient they came from.
I heard once that a relative of HeLa's wanted genetic reparations, basically. I'm premed, so I'm all about the ethics, but the establishment of a cancer cell line doesn't mean you get money whenever an ancestor's cells are used.
Read the article I posted. They're feel slighted that her cells where used without consent, and John Hopkins has profited from them since. For a while, they didn't even know which patient they came from.
I've got to side with Hopkins on this. It's unfortunate, but for every HeLa case, there's likely dozens of similar cases of tissue sampling for studies that contributed to our knowledge but were far more limited in scope.
If you add to that, you'll get rampant, uncontrolled growth.
I said nothing about adding telomerase anywhere. I just wondered the exact mechanics of it and if it mattered if the initial DNA already was near its end, I suspect that's not the case and it would just keep attaching telomeres. Yes, till it gets inhibited.
According to the property law I've read, once your DNA leaves your body it is deemed abandoned property. Losers weepers. There, problem solved. Especially since "ownership" is a legal concept.
You're right about abandoned property, but what was the analysis that lead to the rule? If I allow my my collected Eight is Enough DVD Set to linger near a dumpster, it's easy to see that I've abandoned my right of ownership through intention or neglect.
It's not hard to imagine losing your DNA information by intent, but could you do it through neglect? Even if one is very, very careful, one's DNA could be lost through a stray hair, skin cells, or such being left in public. What standard of care should be applied to keeping such information to oneself?
I think it's almost as if my Eight is Enough DVD Set had a brain and legs and was constanly trying to escape my posession. Should I be punished through losing ownership of it if I've done everything possible to retain my ownership rights to it?
Even if one is very, very careful, one's DNA could be lost through a stray hair, skin cells, or such being left in public. What standard of care should be applied to keeping such information to oneself?
You're right about abandoned property, but what was the analysis that lead to the rule?
The context of the case was a doctor using a tissue sample that was removed during a medical procedure in subsequent medical research and making money off of the research. The guy from whom the tissue was removed objected to not getting any part of the money, since it was his tissue. The court deemed it abandoned since he had undergone a procedure to have it removed and had not taken it home with him afterward.
The case with most things removed or shed from the body is that one makes no effort to keep track of them, and one does not look for them after they are gone. Now whether that always constitutes the required affirmative act of abandonment, I don't know, but I suspect you would be hard pressed to show you deserve to recover a strand of hair from a person who found it on a chair at the airport.
Even if one is very, very careful, one's DNA could be lost through a stray hair, skin cells, or such being left in public. What standard of care should be applied to keeping such information to oneself?
Gattaca. No standard is careful enough.
I was going to say that, but I suspected someone already had said it, and I didn't want to read back through the thread to check.
You're right about abandoned property, but what was the analysis that lead to the rule?
The context of the case was a doctor using a tissue sample that was removed during a medical procedure in subsequent medical research and making money off of the research. The guy from whom the tissue was removed objected to not getting any part of the money, since it was his tissue. The court deemed it abandoned since he had undergone a procedure to have it removed and had not taken it home with him afterward.
Actually, I think I remember reading that case. Here's what distinguishes it from abandoning DNA. The patient intentionally abandoned his tissue. His intent went so far that he went through a medical procedure to have it removed. Similarly, as I said, it's not hard to imagine losing or abandoning your DNA by intent. If you go to a barber, he cuts your hair, and you don't ask for the clippings back or you don't ask for them to be destroyed - boom! Intentional DNA abandonment.
The case with most things removed or shed from the body is that one makes no effort to keep track of them, and one does not look for them after they are gone.
Not now. No reasonable person would think of such a thing until DNA theft becomes common. A few years ago, no reasonable person thought much of throwing away receipts, copies of bills, and such into the trash, but these days people are more careful to destroy that stuff before throwing it away because identity theft has become more common. I suspect that, as the threat of DNA theft becomes more likely and common, people will become more and more careful about things like hair clippings, fingernail clippings, and the like.
I don't know, but I suspect you would be hard pressed to show you deserve to recover a strand of hair from a person who found it on a chair at the airport.
True. Today that sounds ridiculous. If DNA theft were commonplace, I'd bet it would sound much less ridiculous.
DNA theft probably wouldn't be just for clones. I'll bet people could make money using your DNA as part of a research database, or to identify you as part of a consumer group for targeted advertising (like those web cookies that leech information about your browsing habits for targeted advertising purposes), or even to get access to any biometrically encoded information or passwords you may have.
True. Today that sounds ridiculous. If DNA theft were commonplace, I'd bet it would sound much less ridiculous.
DNA theft probably wouldn't be just for clones. I'll bet people could make money using your DNA as part of a research database, or to identify you as part of a consumer group for targeted advertising (like those web cookies that leech information about your browsing habits for targeted advertising purposes), or even to get access to any biometrically encoded information or passwords you may have.
Well, if it becomes easy for people to steal, they will protect against it just like protection against identity fraud does now. You know? I have no problem with people taking my shed cells without my knowledge. Go nuts. Make good things for science. If someone clones me and then is mean to the clone, that is problematic and unethical for other reasons, not because a younger twin of myself exists.
I have no problem with people taking my shed cells without my knowledge. Go nuts. Make good things for science. If someone clones me and then is mean to the clone, that is problematic and unethical for other reasons, not because a younger twin of myself exists.
What if someone took your DNA and then suddenly you couldn't go anywhere without being overwhelmed by advertisements for stuff for people with Parkinson's Disease? Then, after getting fed up with seeing them all the time, you click on one and say, "I don't have Parkinson's Disease!", and the ad software says, "Trust me, YOU WILL."
What if someone took your DNA and then suddenly you couldn't go anywhere without being overwhelmed by advertisements for stuff for people with Parkinson's Disease? Then, after getting fed up with seeing them all the time, you click on one and say, "I don't have Parkinson's Disease!", and the ad software says, "Trust me, YOU WILL."
Then you should thank the ad software for a free medical diagnosis that would have otherwise not been found out until it was too late, and would have cost a lot of moneys for you. Now you have as much advance warning as possible and can work to fight the disease as early as possible.
And if what ever disease you have is untreatable or just too darn expensive, you could be denied insurance for your high risk preexisting condition.
We already discussed how the very idea of insurance is not viable when there is too much information.
That being said, there is a sad reality to medicine. It's fucking expensive. Yes, there are certain things in the US making it more expensive than it is elsewhere, but even without those things, it is expensive. If you have cancer, it cost a lot of money to get treatment just due to the very nature of the world. It's not something we can fix without more research, which is also very expensive. Someone has to pay for these treatments and this research. The sad truth is that some treatments just aren't worth the cost. Got some rare condition and a million dollars will help you for maybe a year? You can pay for that yourself, if you want, but no program can pay for that without going under financially. We can't afford to treat everybody. We have to say no to somebody, and it might be you.
What if someone took your DNA and then suddenly you couldn't go anywhere without being overwhelmed by advertisements for stuff for people with Parkinson's Disease? Then, after getting fed up with seeing them all the time, you click on one and say, "I don't have Parkinson's Disease!", and the ad software says, "Trust me, YOU WILL."
Then you should thank the ad software for a free medical diagnosis that would have otherwise not been found out until it was too late, and would have cost a lot of moneys for you. Now you have as much advance warning as possible and can work to fight the disease as early as possible.
Part of the point here was that some people don't want to know such information about themselves and would consider such a scenario to be a pernicious invasion of their privacy.
However, it's interesting that you would mention preparation. How would you advise us to prepare for an occurrence of debilitating disease? Be really, really wealthy? Know where our business cards are located? Fly an airplane into a hurricane?
Part of the point here was that some people don't want to know such information about themselves and would consider such a scenario to be a pernicious invasion of their privacy.
How could you know want to know something? Ignorance is one thing, but willful ignorance? Also, privacy is dead. Instead of trying to maintain privacy, which is impossible, learn to live without it.
However, it's interesting that you would mention preparation. How would you advise us to prepare for an occurrence of debilitating disease? Be really, really wealthy? Know where our business cards are located? Fly an airplane into a hurricane?
If there is anything at all you can do, you aren't going to be able to do it if you don't know it's coming. Even if there is literally nothing you can do, better to know than not know because there's always a chance you will find something to do. Even if that doesn't happen, it can help you because you will know to make certain preparations, like writing your will or making sure that people pull the plug before you are in impossible pain.
Part of the point here was that some people don't want to know such information about themselves and would consider such a scenario to be a pernicious invasion of their privacy.
How could you know want to know something? Ignorance is one thing, but willful ignorance? Also, privacy is dead. Instead of trying to maintain privacy, which is impossible, learn to live without it.
Many people don't want to know that stuff about their future. Many of those who want to know wouldn't want a third party knowing.
If you think privacy is an outdated concept, please post your SSN and DOB.
If you think privacy is an outdated concept, please post your SSN and DOB.
Government also needs to update itself to deal with the fact that privacy is dead. The SSN system is inherently and outrageously insecure. I mean, how sad is it that frontrowcrew.com has exponentially more security than the social security system.
Government also needs to update itself to deal with the fact that privacy is dead. The SSN system is inherently and outrageously insecure. I mean, how sad is it that frontrowcrew.com has exponentially more security than the social security system.
So you support using DRM to control your information in order to have privacy.
Comments
Other side of the story.
It's not hard to imagine losing your DNA information by intent, but could you do it through neglect? Even if one is very, very careful, one's DNA could be lost through a stray hair, skin cells, or such being left in public. What standard of care should be applied to keeping such information to oneself?
I think it's almost as if my Eight is Enough DVD Set had a brain and legs and was constanly trying to escape my posession. Should I be punished through losing ownership of it if I've done everything possible to retain my ownership rights to it?
The case with most things removed or shed from the body is that one makes no effort to keep track of them, and one does not look for them after they are gone. Now whether that always constitutes the required affirmative act of abandonment, I don't know, but I suspect you would be hard pressed to show you deserve to recover a strand of hair from a person who found it on a chair at the airport.
DNA theft probably wouldn't be just for clones. I'll bet people could make money using your DNA as part of a research database, or to identify you as part of a consumer group for targeted advertising (like those web cookies that leech information about your browsing habits for targeted advertising purposes), or even to get access to any biometrically encoded information or passwords you may have.
I imagine DNA theft will eventually be common place. Once, we all have jet packs and hover-boards. Now it's just super science.
That being said, there is a sad reality to medicine. It's fucking expensive. Yes, there are certain things in the US making it more expensive than it is elsewhere, but even without those things, it is expensive. If you have cancer, it cost a lot of money to get treatment just due to the very nature of the world. It's not something we can fix without more research, which is also very expensive. Someone has to pay for these treatments and this research. The sad truth is that some treatments just aren't worth the cost. Got some rare condition and a million dollars will help you for maybe a year? You can pay for that yourself, if you want, but no program can pay for that without going under financially. We can't afford to treat everybody. We have to say no to somebody, and it might be you.
However, it's interesting that you would mention preparation. How would you advise us to prepare for an occurrence of debilitating disease? Be really, really wealthy? Know where our business cards are located? Fly an airplane into a hurricane?
If you think privacy is an outdated concept, please post your SSN and DOB.