io9
Gene-sequencing technology is taking off, but George Church at Harvard University is taking it to the next level: he wants to sequence the genomes of 100,000 people. Right now, about 12 human genomes have been sequenced and Church's ambitious plan is likely to cost cost around $1 billion to complete. Recently Google — who in February announced its Google Health software for storing electronic medical records — agreed to foot a major part of the bill. Google gives us free email, chat, search, a shopping client, and so on and all they've ever asked is that we let them look at all over our most private information. Seems like a fair trade, but does that extend to our DNA?
Church has good reasons for wanting piles of genomic data. As a Bloomberg article on the project says:
By matching genetic data from each person with his or her health history, Church would build a database that would link DNA variations and disease for scientists and drugmakers, the first step in deciding on treatments that can block the mutations or adjust how they work within the body.Church also said he'll explore other human traits under genetic control. Participants will give facial and body measurements, tell researchers what time they get up in the morning, and detail other behaviors, he said.
Church has already partially sequenced genomes from 10 people, and the jump to 100,000 is under review by a Harvard ethics panel. The project ``only stops when we stop learning things,'' Church said.
We should note: there's no evidence of wrongdoing here, and Google has never explicitly said "we want to organize genetic information." True, they are major investors in the personal genomics company 23andMe, but we have every reason to believe that Big brother "don't be evil" Google will play it straight, keeping any information they have access to safe and anonymous.
But still you've got to wonder, does Google want direct access to DNA information? And if so, why?
Source: Bloomberg via SciGuy
Graphic: Personal Genome Project (Church's outfit)
Comments
Be weary of Google, but it's the citizens of Iceland who should be afraid: [www.cnn.com] [www.guardian.co.uk]
I'm all for this. Cripes, I don't mind them having a map of my DNA anywhere near as much as I mind them knowing what I read, buy, think...etc.
I'd certainly put my DNA where my mouth is (wow! doesn't that sound kinky) when it comes to science.
I don't see the problem as long as the information is de-identified...
Now if they tie it into google maps + real time street view 3.0 and people can watch you walk down the street and click for more info (including purchases at amazoolge; blood type; genomoolge)...
Then we have a problem.
Interesting - i wonder if the readers of io9 represent the feelings of the majority on whether DNA data should be accessed, stored, and used in an anonymous way.
Methinks not - but XEROX me anyway.
Google just wants my genetic information so that it can design a robot body for itself that's as handsome as I am. Sorry, Google. No dice.
I eventually want my genome sequenced, and would like as large a body of information to compare it to as possible. For that, I would be willing to anonymously donate my information. I believe that it is this sort of system The Google is supporting. Google Health would basically be the database against which I would compare myself.
It's alright with me, as long as Annalee and the I09 gang promise to keep a sharp eye on them.
@RAHfanboy:
Charlie Jane: "So you see, Sheriff, Google was hoping to get everybody's genome sequence so they could use it to break into the bank and steal Miss Goodling's diamond!"
Sergey Brin: "And we would've gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!"
Meadowlark: "Hey, there's still time to make it to the game! Hop to it, Globetrotters!"
Annalee: "Wait! My glasses! I can't find my glasses!"
@moff:
Damn! I was hoping it was an episode with Don Knotts.
Does anyone know why they want to start with sequencing not 100, not 1,000, but 100,000 people? How many genetic variations do they really hope to identify, exactly? I imagine the effectiveness of increasing the sample size goes down fairly rapidly...
@Miranda Kali: It would've been, save for the fact that I can't resist a good Meadowlark name-check.
hmmm.. i am thinking that, on second thought, people will want to 'identify' with their uploaded DNA info... 'cause, once all these fantastic discoveries and pre-dispositions and even improvement possibilities start showing up - people will want to search out info on what their DNA means! People will be willing to give out more information just to get increased other benefits (arguably, the Facebook Effect).
So, one will search and say -- given my DNA, what diseases, life span potential, upgrades can i be outfitted with -- yes, yes. And then, the report will come back... you have a 10% chance of diabetes, 30% chance of living past 90.. and so on.. people will HUNGER to know what there genetic future/ potential/ (even children) will be like. Its like being able to predict your future.. though, of course, I could be talking out of my ass - because i don't know if most diseases, life span issues, etc. are more likely based on environment rather than your genetics - any molec-bios out there? (i.e. how important is your DNA info to you, really?)
Couldn't this information also be used to exploit genetic weakness in various areas? Also, would this info help build more effective chemical weapons? I know it has good applications, but aren't there some bad ones? Pardon the cliche, but what if it "gets into the wrong hands"?
If Google went all Gatica on us and allowed those with awesome genes to have an extra terrabite of storage, I say I am in.
Not saying i would get the extra terrabite, but hell, its worth a shot!
@Priam: "Couldn't this information also be used to exploit genetic weakness in various areas?" No. There are some genetic markers common to certain racial groups, but they are already known, and there's currently no way to apply that knowledge to weaponry. In general, though, populations are so diverse and genomes are so common that it would be very difficult to build weapons, chemical or otherwise, that targeted specific population groups without risking others.
"Let Me Be The First To Welcome Our Google Overlords"
and the brains in jars that actually run them...
I would. It doesn't hurt, and they would do it anonymously.
It would help a lot with pharmaceutical companies that are trying to figure out why drugs work for some people and not others.
Short answer?
No.
Anyone else feel like Aldous Huxley is coming to get us?
@moff: Maybe we should bring in Team Gizmodo...never mind.
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams
I love google as much as the next internet user but trust them with my personal PERSONAL stuff...like my DNA? Nah.
"Don't be evil" :
Easy to say when you're at the top!
Problems are when you can no longer afford to keep your promises.
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?