Thread: Scared Your DNA Is Exposed? Then Share It, Scientists Suggest

Scared Your DNA Is Exposed? Then Share It, Scientists Suggest


A group of medical researchers have a counterintuitive proposal for shielding people’s most intimate personal data from prying eyes.


Share more of it, they say. A lot more of it.


In a new paper published in the journal Science on Thursday, researchers suggest that the best way to protect genetic information might be for all Americans to deposit their data in a universal, nationwide DNA database. The paper is being published by researchers from the Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s Center for Genetic Privacy and Identity in Community Settings, a major center for the study of genetic privacy.


Concerns about who can gain access to genetic information gathered by consumer genetic-testing websites has been on the climb since April, when police made an arrest in a decades-old serial-murder case in California. To ensnare the alleged Golden State Killer, investigators trawled an open-source database popular with genealogy hobbyists to search for relatives of possible suspects. Police found matches, and then got their man.


If enhancing privacy by creating a giant database of people’s DNA sounds counterintuitive, the group’s point is that it’s already too late to prevent mass exposure.


The California case made clear that consumers have little control over where their genetic information -- and by extension, that of their family members -- can wind up, a potential privacy nightmare.


“Currently, law enforcement already has potential access to millions of people’s data,” said James Hazel, a researcher at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, and the lead author of the paper. “A universal system would be much easier to regulate.”


Hazel, who studies genetic privacy issues, said that the idea isn’t as radical as it sounds. In the U.S., state and federal databases hold the genetic data of more than 16.5 million people who have been arrested or convicted of a crime. Other public and private databases could grant access to the genetic details of millions more with court permission.


The genetic information of many more people could be indirectly exposed. A recent study concluded that only 2 percent of the population needs to have done a DNA test for virtually everyone’s genetic makeup to be exposed. Hazel and his co-authors also say that data collected from law-enforcement sources disproportionately exposes people of color.


Hazel said having a more complete repository would offer better privacy protections. Such a database could hold a more limited set of genetic information than the data that can now be culled from consumer-testing reports. And access could be regulated and controlled. Police can currently peer into open-source databases without a judge’s permission.


“This is a very provocative proposal,” Hazel said, “But it all comes down to spurring a debate about the current system.”


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ntists-suggest





Wooo hoo. What could possibly go wrong heh? the worlds DNA in the hands of a bunch of crooks pushing their Eugenics agenda.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

If enhancing privacy by creating a giant database of people’s DNA sounds counterintuitive,

Yes it does.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Share more of it, they say.

Done that, multiple times.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

pushing their Eugenics agenda.

Do you have a problem with eugenics? In the right hands and with the right parameters, it's humanity's best hope.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Do you have a problem with eugenics? In the right hands and with the right parameters, it's humanity's best hope.

Hope of what? Best hope of a small elite controlling a slave population of about 500,000 people? best chance of a dystopian world where everything is carved and built solely to benefit the people with the money to fund all of this? The elites? Off your rocker sunshine. You point me to the person who has the power to shape human kind and I'll point you to a person who needs a bullet in the head.

counting down to pseudolus' inevitable theory of how there is a connection between eugenics, fluoride and tower 7.

Awaiting nature's selected extermination period.

Couldn't be soon enough.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Hope of what? Best hope of a small elite controlling a slave population of about 500,000 people? best chance of a dystopian world where everything is carved and built solely to benefit the people with the money to fund all of this? The elites? Off your rocker sunshine. You point me to the person who has the power to shape human kind and I'll point you to a person who needs a bullet in the head.

I think yours and my definitions of eugenics are different.
I'm talking about up against the wall all psycopaths and degenerates, burdens on society. Just that. . The world would be a better place.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Do you have a problem with eugenics?

Yes he does. He doesn't have a fucking clue what it means.

I mentioned overpopulation as an environmental risk and he started squealing "Eugenics!" like a little schoolgirl.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

overpopulation as an environmental risk

It most definitely is.

All Americans ?

Talk about poisoning the well

Originally Posted by Maanaam

It most definitely is.

So say the eugenics brigade. When they needed huge population growth they got it. Now they don't want the useless eaters so they spread the myths CNNHarry believes. The world could provide for 50 billion people if the emphasis was living and not profiteering and slavery

Originally Posted by pseudolus

So say the eugenics brigade. .... The world could provide for 50 billion people if the emphasis was living and not profiteering and slavery

I understand your argument and it certainly would help things if there was (were? Crylle?) less profiteering.
Arbitrary number aside, it's still a limit and at some point in time people will have to be forced to stop breeding....who first? The degenerates, of course.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

I understand your argument and it certainly would help things if there was (were? Crylle?) less profiteering.
Arbitrary number aside, it's still a limit and at some point in time people will have to be forced to stop breeding....who first? The degenerates, of course.

Sid wants his tin foil hat back. Manny has lost his moral compass.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

So say the eugenics brigade. When they needed huge population growth they got it. Now they don't want the useless eaters so they spread the myths CNNHarry believes. The world could provide for 50 billion people if the emphasis was living and not profiteering and slavery

Nope. Still doesn't know what "Eugenics" means.