Comments on: 23 And Me...And Google...And Your Genome

23 And Me...And Google...And Your Genome

artifarce — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:51:00 -0800

Want your genome on a hard drive but don't have the money? 23andMe can give you almost that: a scan of your SNPs, presented online and complete with analyses derived from up-to-date medical research (and a few educated guesses). Eight months ago, blogs were rife with speculation of who 23 could be and what the connection with Google could mean.

But only more recently did 23 launch, and were present at the World Economic Forum last month, obtaining the raw resources (i.e., spit) to develop the genome scan of hundreds of the world's most powerful people, something the Center for Genetics and Society refers to as the beginning of a "fashionable fetish" for the elite; Wired refers to the general trend as retail genomics. More seriously, the CGS also questions the ethics and goals of the scheme, positing that only big business will ultimately benefit (largely from patents and pharmaceuticals), while consumers may have something to lose—their genetic privacy. And to end on a note ripe for humor, 23 plans to release social networking features later this year. To learn more about the actual 23andMe procedure and web interface, the Wired article (linked above) and the NYT are on the case.

By: crapmatic

crapmatic — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:13:19 -0800

I fear that in 2020 I'll be having to decide whether to forego a mortgage or bite the bullet and submit my DNA for authentication..... which of course gets genome-typed by Experian and affects my FICO score and health insurance rates.

By: mccarty.tim

mccarty.tim — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:21:05 -0800

@Crap: That would be scary. Not just for health insurance. Imagine if debt mongers (i.e. credit cards) have a good idea of when you'd die, and thus set an interest rate ensuring they'd get the most money possible from you? We need to get some laws passed to stop discrimination here. But then again, it gets muddy with DNA, because as we get to know it better, we might find the genes we best associate with talent/work ethic/merit/genius/etc. Banning genetic discrimination in those regards would turn our capitalist system on its head. But then allowing it would likely lead to a situation like in Gattaca, where gene tests determine if someone is too mediocre for certain jobs. Clearly, we need someone smarter than me working on the laws of the future. Thanks to the 96% incumbency rate, those people will probably be today's senators. It's gonna be quite a ride. This all assumes genetics trump environment in most cases. Here's hoping, for the human race, environment keeps things murky enough that everyone gets a chance to prove themselves, regardless of their past.

By: Thorzdad

Thorzdad — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:21:33 -0800

crapmatic...I fear it will be much, much sooner that 2020. Health insurers are already looking closely at genotyping applicants.

By: mccarty.tim

mccarty.tim — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:25:38 -0800

Crap, I meant to say "genes," not "past." If there's an edit function in MeFi, sorry I didn't use it. I'm kinda a noob. So, would they look over the genes again as the knowledge of the genome expands? $1000 seems like a lot for me to spend, but if more of the genetics associated with autism are found, and could be found from the sample I sent, that would be great for me in deciding if I should have kids. Autism seems to run in my family (I'm not autistic, but my grandmother, great grandmother, and sister are, and I think some of my relatives show a few traits). My mom thinks environmental factors, like pollution and vaccines, are to blame, so a clean environment may keep a child of my own from becoming autistic, if that is the case. However, if the autism in my family is innate, adoption would probably be a better idea.

By: grouse

grouse — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:29:43 -0800

So, would they look over the genes again as the knowledge of the genome expands? They intimate something like that: "We'll keep you updated on the latest genetic discoveries, and you can keep checking your account to see what those advances may mean for you."

By: jason's_planet

jason's_planet — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:39:17 -0800

You know, I wasn't exactly blown away when I first saw this site. They only seemed to test for a few traits and diseases. It didn't seem to be worth the money they were charging. But then, the first flight at Kitty Hawk probably wasn't too impressive-looking either.

By: roll truck roll

roll truck roll — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:41:55 -0800

After these revelations, there's a somewhat sick part of me that really wants to see a genetic-compatibility-based dating service.

By: grouse

grouse — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:45:12 -0800

Finally a way to genotype my earwax type. Now I won't have to taste used Q-tips anymore! Thanks 23andme!

By: localhuman

localhuman — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:01:56 -0800

Gross gross icky Gattica insurance yuck I'm afraid for the future.

By: meehawl

meehawl — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:06:52 -0800

Decode Genetics (decodeme) has been doing the personalised SNP business for longer than 23andme, and offers roughly 10x the SNPs of 23andme for the same price. The best thing is that the company safely removed from the privacy-hostile US environment and is based in Iceland, which has one of the stricter data privacy regimes in the world (even when you're dead, which protects your descendent's genetic privacy as well). Lodging your genetic data with any US-based company is basically tantamount to public genetic exhibitionism. Do it, by all means, but don't act surprised when your genome ends up exposed on random Google searches.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:09:21 -0800

No privacy, and they'll sell your data to big pharma and big insurance. Stay away.

By: spiderwire

spiderwire — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:16:46 -0800

Eight months ago, blogs were rife with speculation of who 23 could be and what the connection with Google could mean. Without reading the links or comments, I'm calling 23 chromosome pairs.

By: spiderwire

spiderwire — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:20:17 -0800

Oh... was the question who the company is? Um, it's a present for Sergey Brin's girlfriend, what more was there to know?

By: spiderwire

spiderwire — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:27:06 -0800

orthogonality: No privacy, and they'll sell your data to big pharma and big insurance. Stay away. Ortho, you're so uncreative. Did Gattaca teach you people nothing? 1. Think of the healthiest person you know who looks somewhat like you. Next time you run into them, ruffle their hair playfully when you say hello. 2. Take one of the strands of hair that gets caught in your fingers and bring it to 23andme to get sequenced. Give them allllll your personal information like you have no idea what they're going to do with it. 3. Get cheap-ass insurance, pharmaceuticals, and health care for the rest of your life.

By: Asparagirl

Asparagirl — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:53:15 -0800

FYI, a lot of information and useful utilities about deCODEme, 23andme, SegWright, Knome, and other full-genome-scan companies are collected on this webpage. Personally, I use the terrific FamilyTreeDNA for all my genework, since genealogy is my main focus rather than disease-tracking, but I hear rumors that they too are going to start offering similar targeted gene tests in the near future. Lots of money to be made in this arena...

By: Maias

Maias — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:57:15 -0800

There already is a genetic "compatibility" dating site based on the MHC stuff that determines how you smell/ your immune system. It was discussed here before but search isn't finding it for me for some reason... based in boston.

By: Maias

Maias — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:58:22 -0800

also, yeah, i didn't see speculation.. when it was first announced, it was announced as brin's girlfriend's project.

By: artifarce

artifarce — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:59:02 -0800

While this topic is certainly ripe for some analysis of the ethics and repercussions that mass genome typing might lead to, I was also excited by the detail in the Wired and NYT articles. To me, the the increased rate of which we're learning about the human genome and the accessibility to the layman is akin to seeing computer technology not only get better, but cheaper, and exponentially so. The unique identity that is one's own genetic information and a fractional sense of what it means is the draw of 23andme. Maybe I'll have to keep looking for something that's more private--thank you for the link to decodeme, meehawl.

By: artifarce

artifarce — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:00:17 -0800

And forgetting preview, thank you, asparagirl, for more resources.

By: Lutoslawski

Lutoslawski — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:22:32 -0800

This may have already been posted, but here is the wired article on 23andMe, which has a vid interview with the founders.

By: -t

-t — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:24:01 -0800

One word: creepy.

By: -t

-t — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:24:23 -0800

On multiple levels.

By: eye of newt

eye of newt — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 16:14:05 -0800

Here's another interesting and skeptical article on 23andMe. Another Genealogy based DNA service, Sorenson Genomics, always made a point to stay away from recording the DNA for used for disease tracking. It was founded by Utah's medical inventor/billionare James Sorenson, who died just a couple of weeks ago. (H.e invented disposable surgical masks, among many other things)

By: Hutch

Hutch — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 16:57:02 -0800

Its disheartening to think that you could put out so much money for one of these scans and already be using outdated technology. All the cool kids are doing disease association studies on copy number variation these days. From the second link: Most research has focused on small alterations, called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). It may be, said Scherer, that some diseases are caused by copy number variations rather than SNPs. In fact, recent research has already linked such variations to kidney disease, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and AIDS susceptibility. Personally, if I'm going to pay my hard earned cash for someone to analyze my genome, I want to get something a bit more lasting out of the deal.

By: grouse

grouse — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:25:25 -0800

All the cool kids are doing disease association studies on copy number variation these days. Of course, the coolest kids would know that you can infer the presence of a copy number polymorphism using SNPs. They'd also know that CNV studies are not a replacement for SNP studies.

By: Emperor SnooKloze

Emperor SnooKloze — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:26:04 -0800

A prediction from a friend of mine who's knowledgeable about such things: 23 (and by association, Google) are really aiming at compiling the biggest human genomic dataset anywhere, and then providing that raw data to places like Celera Genomics and the HGP. While I'm not nuts about monetizing people's genetic code, it is a fascinating notion.

By: Hutch

Hutch — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 19:18:24 -0800

Of course, the coolest kids would know that you can infer the presence of a copy number polymorphism using SNPs. The efficacy of the COPPER algorithm has yet to be widely assessed (although the results from the NEJM autism study are pretty solid). Hence the CNV probes on the latest iteration of the Affymetrix arrays. One potential drawback of exclusively relying on SNP data to infer CNVs might be an uneven distribution (when examining small windows) of arrayed SNPs across the genome. As the algorithm (as I understand it) relies on finding correlated changes in SNP intensities, you might expect to overlook CNVs in areas with lower amounts of coverage.

By: Ynoxas

Ynoxas — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 19:56:25 -0800

A thousand dollars? Can't I just click on some ads or watch some videos or something?

By: chrisamiller

chrisamiller — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 20:31:12 -0800

As someone who studies genomics, I'll tell you that unless your family has a history of some rare genetic disorder, there's not much point right now. Give the biology a few years to catch up to the technology. This stuff will only get cheaper and more powerful.

By: spiderwire

spiderwire — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 20:36:48 -0800

A thousand dollars? Can't I just click on some ads or watch some videos or something? A quick Google search reveals that the average cost per click for Google Ads is about $0.50, so you should only have to click on about two thousand. Four thousand and you get a new laptop! ... Holy shit, I just realized how totally broken the Internet economy is.

By: mccarty.tim

mccarty.tim — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:34:03 -0800

@Ynoxas: Why not just sell the right for ad companies to analyze your genome for marketing research? I'm scared to say that once the technology hits the sub-$100 range, that could very well be the case, and I might just fall for it because of how darn fascinating it is.

By: caution live frogs

caution live frogs — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:21:22 -0800

Startup money from Google? I can see it now... Welcome to GEne (beta)! GEne is different. Here's what you need to know... 1. Don't sequence your genes - search! 2. You don't like junk DNA. Neither do we. ...and so on.

By: Ynoxas

Ynoxas — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:26:16 -0800

A quick Google search reveals that the average cost per click for Google Ads is about $0.50, so you should only have to click on about two thousand. Four thousand and you get a new laptop! ... Holy shit, I just realized how totally broken the Internet economy is. posted by spiderwire at 10:36 PM on February 3 [+] [!] I could make a decent living clicking ads at $0.50 a pop. I've seen probably 200 ads today, and that's from about 30 minutes reading CNN through the day and maybe an hour on various sites (non-porn even) tonight. Let's see... 1000 ads would be 125 per hour for 8 hours, so a little over 2 per minute. Yeah, I think I could do that pretty easy. Take a job like overnight security guard or motel front desk, you could earn 2 incomes. Ok I'm sold. Where do I sign up?