• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Parthenios

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
13,618
How ethical would it be to have a machine learning algorithm read 10 million DNA sequences and then have it create custom DNA, noticing patterns that increase strength or intelligence or beauty? Just hook this up to the 23 and me database and a CRISPR and let it start splicing together IRL deepfake humans?
 

Anarion07

Avenger
Oct 28, 2017
2,228
How ethical would it be to have a machine learning algorithm read 10 million DNA sequences and then have it create custom DNA, noticing patterns that increase strength or intelligence or beauty? Just hook this up to the 23 and me database and a CRISPR and let it start splicing together IRL deepfake humans?
Many buzzwords but total bs.
 

Tapiozona

Avenger
Oct 28, 2017
2,253
Love it. The data would have sat there collecting dust, at least it's being used for the betterment of mankind. Of course the treatment will cost money but all treatment costs money.

The other option is people who are now benefitting would just suffer. Guessing all of them are pretty happy. Failing to see an issue at all
 

riotous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,353
Seattle
How ethical would it be to have a machine learning algorithm read 10 million DNA sequences and then have it create custom DNA, noticing patterns that increase strength or intelligence or beauty? Just hook this up to the 23 and me database and a CRISPR and let it start splicing together IRL deepfake humans?
They would have to do know the intelligence of each of the 10 million people being sampled; or their beauty, etc. They don't know that from looking at DNA alone, any more than they already have markers for.
 
OP
OP

BAD

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,566
USA
Ok.. it's right on the main pop-out menu on the left side of the screen.

And to answer your other question about how the research page "seams different"; I'm pretty sure that's all the same thing. If you don't opt-in to research your individual data is never really looked at by anyone; you just become part of "counts" (aggregates.) If you opt in for your individual data to be part of research you are also asked for survey questions.

I somehow doubt they are using aggregates to cure diseases; they need to look at a specific DNA profile and then a survey of questions about what your medical health / lifestyle is.

So the research stuff which is mentioned all over their site, and people explicitly agree too, and then answer questions for.. is what this medicine they developed is from.
The links you screenshotted from the desktop site appears as just a "How it works" link. You have to click and it loads a new page. It doesn't indicate it explains the profits from the DNA health test.
 

riotous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,353
Seattle
The links you screenshotted from the desktop site appears as just a "How it works" link. You have to click and it loads a new page. It doesn't indicate it explains the profits from the DNA health test.
Scroll farther down the menu.

"Research participation."

It's all over their web site.. an advertised part of their company from the jump.. you opt in with clear language, etc.

I'm sorry but you are being incredibly stubborn to the point of ridiculousness here.

The product they are selling are ancestry tests; of course that's going to be the most prominent thing on their site. They also use the fact you can contribute to research as MARKETING.. let alone how explicit their opting in is.. let alone the fact it's been part of the founding of the company from the start, partly how they sold the idea to investors, etc. There's nothing nefarious here.
 

Paquete_PT

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
5,338
It is scummy how they use the biologic data from patients that payed (!) to use their product.
That being said, while they will use it for profit, the idea behind getting new drugs from dna pools big data could be really interesting for the future of medicine
 

megalowho

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,562
New York, NY
The compound belongs to a class of large-molecule drugs designed to target a single protein in the body, what's known as a bispecific monoclonal antibody. That antibody is designed to block signals from a family of proteins known as IL-36 cytokine that is associated with many autoimmune and inflammatory conditions, such as lupus and Crohn's disease.

As mentioned, there's a research consent form you have to read and choose to participate in or decline. Personally I find medical advancements in fields like this really exciting and find knee jerk anti-science anger disappointing, we have so much to learn from DNA research that can help patients.
 

Parthenios

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
13,618
Many buzzwords but total bs.
I'm being cheeky for effect, but I don't know why an A.I. couldn't put together new, unique DNA in a similar way to how they can generate new, unique human faces for profile pics for boys. (Edit: this is supposed to say 'bots' lol)

They would have to do know the intelligence of each of the 10 million people being sampled; or their beauty, etc. They don't know that from looking at DNA alone, any more than they already have markers for.
That's true. I haven't done one of these but I imagined they had some sort of questionnaire? My brother did this one or ancestry and it asked so many questions that I doubted his results came from the DNA and not the survey.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
10,660
As mentioned, there's a research consent form you have to read and choose to participate in or decline. Personally I find medical advancements in fields like this really exciting and find knee jerk anti-science anger disappointing, we have so much to learn from DNA research that can help patients.
I'm not anti science, I'm anti corporate.
 

riotous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,353
Seattle
That's true. I haven't done one of these but I imagined they had some sort of questionnaire? My brother did this one or ancestry and it asked so many questions that I doubted his results came from the DNA and not the survey.

You do, but it's about your health history and habits.. to develop medicine.. not creepy test tube babies lol. You can't "survey" someone's intelligence easy, certainly not their beauty.

Are you hot?

Yes X
No O

They could theoretically develop "babies with a greater chance of being healthy" from what they know; but we already kinda know a lot of that stuff.
 

tokkun

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,416
I'd gladly consider being in a typical paid study that discusses the project. This is not that. They have almost no discussions on the pages that market the test about their sales to big pharma.

Paid clinical studies involve health risk, discomfort, and time loss on the part of the participant. That's why people get paid for them.

I used to sell plasma when I was broke. That was painful, took an hour, and only paid $25. No one is paying good money for a cheek swab.
 
OP
OP

BAD

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,566
USA
As mentioned, there's a research consent form you have to read and choose to participate in or decline. Personally I find medical advancements in fields like this really exciting and find knee jerk anti-science anger disappointing, we have so much to learn from DNA research that can help patients.
I don't think people are against research and science, but rather the business model of selling people a test that can then be leveraged again for profit in big pharma. It's very different than someone enticing you with participating in a study or paid research from the start. This kit has probably been gifted and bought by many people who saw their commercials and ads that exclusively entice with promise of personalized health revelations.
 

megalowho

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,562
New York, NY
I'm not anti science, I'm anti corporate.
Of course. Knee jerk anti-corporatism at all costs, despite the company informing the consumer at the point of transaction of their research goals, no thought to the compound itself, or patients that can benefit from cutting edge research that only a database like this could produce.

I don't think people are against research and science, but rather the business model of selling people a test that can then be leveraged again for profit in big pharma. It's very different than someone enticing you with participating in a study or paid research from the start. This kit has probably been gifted and bought by many people who saw their commercials and ads that exclusively entice with promise of personalized health revelations.
You can do all of that and opt out of research, I believe the default is opt out.
 
Oct 27, 2017
10,660
I don't think people are against research and science, but rather the business model of selling people a test that can then be leveraged again for profit in big pharma. It's very different than someone enticing you with participating in a study or paid research from the start. This kit has probably been gifted and bought by many people who saw their commercials and ads that exclusively entice with promise of personalized health revelations.
But what about "making helpful medicines for people that cost millions of dollars that we can use as evidence we're not evil while selling your data to insurance companies?"
 
Oct 27, 2017
10,660
Of course. Knee jerk anti-corporatism at all costs, despite the company informing the consumer at the point of transaction of their research goals, no thought to the compound itself, or patients that can benefit from cutting edge research that only a database like this could produce.
And how might these people afford said medicines when the company is only out to highly profit?
 

killerrin

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,239
Toronto
But what about "making helpful medicines for people that cost millions of dollars that we can use as evidence we're not evil while selling your data to insurance companies?"

Well actually, I would love it if an Insurance Company or Employer asked me to provide (or bought) my DNA Results, because in my country it is literally illegal for those two groups to use that information to come up with decisions or use it to discriminate. As such, I would win a metric fuck-tonne of money in court and live life worry free.
 
Last edited:

Vamphuntr

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,301
How ethical would it be to have a machine learning algorithm read 10 million DNA sequences and then have it create custom DNA, noticing patterns that increase strength or intelligence or beauty? Just hook this up to the 23 and me database and a CRISPR and let it start splicing together IRL deepfake humans?

You really want to be able to patent human DNA to make embryos? In the plant world people are finally starting to fight back against Monsato for patenting plant DNA they've created to resist their herbicide. You really want to patent life itself?

The main problem is not so much making a breakthrough medication. No one is complaining against that I hope. It's more of an issue with the overall compensation and the medical system of the modern world.

Let's see how much this breakthrough treatment will cost for patients and if they will be able to afford for it. It will put into perspective the goodwill of the company.

For reference the average price of a mAB therapy in the US is above 95 000 $ according to this .
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,089
Arkansas, USA
I don't understand why I should be upset. The company is going to profit on your DNA.... by developing medication and paying researchers to make advances in healthcare? That strikes me as a good thing. I mean, if it turns out they're taking some $2 drug and marking it up 10,000% to make obscene profits, yeah, I don't like that. But I don't have a problem with them using anonymized DNA for medical research; I see it as a net positive that they have so much additional DNA to work with.

Great response, I very much agree. Crony capitalism has run amok in the US, but let's take a breath and try to not reflexively lash out.
 

Commedieu

Banned
Nov 11, 2017
15,025
Did people think they weren't gonna do this? A business isn't gonna survive off ancestry

people have no problem with this though. It was all worth it to say they're 1% black and can now say the n word

I have a co-worker. 99% black like 1 % asian.

He identifies as half asian due to a distant great grandparent. Born and raised in Springfield Ohio. 2 black parents...

It's totally true.
 

Eeyore

User requested ban
Banned
Dec 13, 2019
9,029
Might as well not try then, you're right. Medical advancements are too expensive and scary.

I'm not sure what gives you the confidence that corporations are doing anything but looking at their own best interests. When it comes to medical advancements it's even more obvious. Even if you are confident and feel comfortable, surely you can understand other people's reticence with how stuff like the opiate crisis has gone.
 

Soda

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,900
Dunedin, New Zealand
So you're saying their service is going to help people via new drug discovery?

Don't blame them for making money on the sale of drugs, blame the entire healthcare/pharma industry and associated laws. If anything, 23andMe using their data to generate new medicines is a good thing.
 

DanGo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,748
You may not like it, but 23andMe is quite upfront about all of this and they require additional consent.

They have tons of info about their process: https://www.23andme.com/about/consent/

There are valid debates to be had about the commercialization of genetic data, but it's really hard to argue that anyone is being hoodwinked into this.
 

Eeyore

User requested ban
Banned
Dec 13, 2019
9,029
So you're saying their service is going to help people via new drug discovery?

Don't blame them for making money on the sale of drugs, blame the entire healthcare/pharma industry and associated laws. If anything, 23andMe using their data to generate new medicines is a good thing.

This is like saying "don't blame Amazon for not paying taxes, blame the laws." Why not both?
 

Deleted member 36578

Dec 21, 2017
26,561
I'd honestly be surprised if these companies weren't doing this .
 

Soda

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,900
Dunedin, New Zealand
I'm being cheeky for effect, but I don't know why an A.I. couldn't put together new, unique DNA in a similar way to how they can generate new, unique human faces for profile pics for boys.

We can already assemble random sequences of DNA via AI. The problem is, we still can't predict the function of those strings well enough to know the outcome. The knowledge to build off of just isn't there yet. Stuff like what 23&Me is doing is probably one of many projects that will help get us there, though.
 

Br3wnor

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,982
I've always thought giving a corporation your DNA was pretty insane but a lot of people do it and most likely don't care that the company is doing this with their data. Honestly, of all the nefarious stuff a company could do with your DNA code, anonymously using it to help create medicine is one of the better ones. Still crazy to give them your DNA but might as well make use of what they're given.