Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
When is the earliest likelihood they will use these tests as evidence in court? Like if you were a serial killer but you adamantly deny it, the prosecutor could get you tested and say you have so and so serial killer genes. Or you want to prove you are mentally insane.
Personally I don't have an opinion on how viable, or destructive, it can be. There are certainly more shady ways to convict or exonerate people, like he said she said.
@ChocoboSandwich: I'm actually more worried about qualifications for health care and benefits. "Oh, you have the cancer gene, you have to pay a higher premium".
I'm glad that some places [www.nytimes.com] have already put non-discrimination measures towards your genetic code.
As a scientist at the University of Cambridge with some familiarity with the data obtained by large scale genetic screening projects I'm not sure someone who is selling sequencing is the right person to talk to about the future of the technology.
Whilst the cost and speed is likely to come down dramatically I feel the timescale of his predictions is rather optimistic. Although our rate of sequencing will increase, the number of diseases we can link to a single gene is likely to be rapidly exhausted. Attempting to relate complex polygenetic risk factors to an actual phenotype, whilst also taking in to account environmental factors is far more complicated and requires large studies in relatively controlled populations. Many current 'studies' are actually meta-analyses performed on pooled data from other peoples work.
Once you think you may have identified these risk factors you actually need to do some real experimentation to understand what they mean at the cellular level, which will also take several years.
I am sure some of the current obstacles will be overcome but increased sequencing speed is certainly not going to be the only driver here. #knome
We have absolutely no idea what about 30 percent of these genes do right now, and very little idea of many more. As if figuring this out weren't daunting enough, there's mounting evidence that histone proteins in my area of research, epigenetics, will "code" for traits in the same way DNA does. Stay tuned, folks.
There is a glaring error in the first quoted line of this article.
I'm going to be a nit-picker and not only point it out, but, correct it.
In 2003, we mapped the human genome...
it should read: In 2003, we mappedA human genome...
There is no single, human genome. Every human has a different one.
If all our genomes were alike, we'd be virtual clones of each other. There would still be differences, due to our DNA, but, there would be many many more similarities than what we see now. All the genetic differences would be gone.
So, calling it THE human genome is wrong. The genome they mapped was the genome for their test subject, and no one else.
Mark Wilson promoted this comment
Edited by ottermann killed Kenny at 11/10/09 4:27 PM
ottermann killed Kenny was starred
ottermann killed Kenny was unstarred
@ottermann killed Kenny: Note that man invented "the wheel" despite every wheel being different. It's just a symantic manner of categorization. Please relax. #knome
People are getting way too excited about this genome thing. It's like giving BoBo the chimp a periodic table and expecting great things to happen. I wouldn’t hold your breath. It will take a long time before the idiot scientists figure out just what those tiny strings of protein mean. #knome
@Noobs-R-Us: They have a good reason to be. While we have reason to not believe everything this man says about how your genome will be integrated into your everyday life, it's still very exciting within the field of medicine.
Think about this: If you are young enough now where that "20 years into the future" still won't put you to be too old (I'll be 38 at the time, personally), you can get your blood checked before you become at risk for many fatal diseases. Doctors will be able to prescribe you personalized medicines that will prevent and/or cure anything that may cause harm to you, medicinally speaking.
This will GREATLY increase the average life-span of human beings, and when the cost falls enough, we can bring this new technology to developing countries, and help fight the millions of diseases that people face there on a daily basis.
Now, personally, with this new technology coming around, I'm hoping that the future won't end up like the movie Gattaca, where people are segregated based on if their genes are "perfect" or not. I doubt that will happen, but even so, I hope we as humans are wise enough at the time to NOT let anything happen like that. #knome
@Duckspwn: It depends on how you define idiot. Idiots in the field they are studying, otherwise they wouldn't study it, but certainly of higher intelligence than the rest of the gene pool. #knome
@Duckspwn: Scientists can be quite idiotic. Especially when they don't have the equipment to figure stuff out. Remember when they used to think the world was flat, the internal organs were the four humors, and that you could turn mercury into gold? #knome
@Xak Dziura: You’re young and naïve. What you fail to realize is that we have a population problem. Especially in places like India. Within your lifetime you will see mass death regardless of how far science has progressed. We may or may not have dodged a bullet with the N1H1 this winter but more horrific events are in store for humans.
Those of us who’s been around long enough have heard all the medical bullshit for decades. How AIDES was going to be a thing of the past in 10-20 years back in the 80’s, how cancer will be a thing of the past in 30-40 years in the 70’s. One thing the old timers have learned is that there never seems to be a lack of doubt about any of the bullshit when the bullshit was proclaimed to the masses. I guess hope springs eternal.
The last thing I want to mention is that so what if what you said will become a reality, most of us won’t be able to afford it at the rate that costs are increasing. But mostly I just think what "scientists" are saying is pure fantasy. In fact, if medicine were like technology, computers would still be using vacuum tubes and be the size of football fields. #knome
@Noobs-R-Us: 1. Did you read the post? "costs are increasing" doesn't apply to DNA sequencing which is getting dramatically cheaper.
2. Science reporters (and now PR departments of universities) make the wild claims, but that doesn't mean science hasn't progressed. "The medical bullshit" has developed Gleevec that cures chronic myelogenous leukemia when it's caused by a specific chromosome mutation which leads to a garbled protein. That's just one set of cancers, but damn awesome.
3. Genomics and other fields like protein folding make medical research more like computing. That doesn't guarantee accelerated results, but it helps.
4. You're right about population pressure and probably right about mass death, but most medical advances benefit rich people.
Either way I stand by what I said. Idiocy = not relative. Scientists = not always smartest.
You equated being a scientist with being the smartest. Not all scientists are smart. The "best and brightest" aren't always scientists.
In the time periods I was referring to scientists were most definately not the smartest people on the planet. Those would have been the philosophers, artists, ruler, military leaders, and explorers that dominated in the days I was referring to of Alchemy, flat earth and other wild scientific theories. #knome
Edited by DeusExMach wonders what the hell happened to his stapler. at 08/11/09 11:56 AM
DeusExMach wonders what the hell happened to his stapler. was starred
DeusExMach wonders what the hell happened to his stapler. was unstarred
Sure it's nice progress, but this has been possible for maybe 2-3x the cost for at least the last year on competitor sequencing platforms.....using just one instrument and with just one technician.
@Rosa Golijan: The Illumina Genome Analyzer has been out since the start of '07 and can now sequence approx 15 billion letters of the DNA sequence in a single run (that takes 10 days)....one copy of your genome is about 3 billion letters long. Cause it's shotgun sequencing you have to sequence it about 20 times over (i.e. 60 billion bases) to cover about 90% of your genome.
There's currently a very fierce tech war between all these companies to increase the output dramatically to get to the $1000 genome, and there are some big changes on the horizon. So in the coming 3-5 years we'll likely see a huge increase, and getting your genome sequenced will become much more commonplace.
@goat with mange:
It's even more than that with the latest hardware config and software upgrades, it's no sweat to get 25billion bases in about 8 days.
@voltronguy: sure, I was being somewhat conservative.....and they were projecting several fold more by the end of the year.....but then again their PR machines are also going full bore too, so we'll see.....crazy stuff
The profs at my med school say it needs to cost $1000 and you need to get results back in a month before it has true widespread uses. Until then, it'll be relegated more towards research usage and not clinical medicine.
Of course, it also brings into account a whole slew of "class-creating dymanics" and talks of "superior genes". If you've ever seen Gattaca, it could become something like that. Or if you take it to the extreme, we'll end up with something like Gundan SEED & Gundam SEED Destiny (minus all the crazy mecha outer space action).
@OCEntertainment: Good programmers know that improving algorithms is almost always more worthwhile than waiting for new hardware. Moore's Law doesn't have anything to do with scientists now having years of data after as opposed to nothing before starting the project.
11/10/09
Personally I don't have an opinion on how viable, or destructive, it can be. There are certainly more shady ways to convict or exonerate people, like he said she said.
11/10/09
I'm glad that some places [www.nytimes.com] have already put non-discrimination measures towards your genetic code.
11/10/09
Whilst the cost and speed is likely to come down dramatically I feel the timescale of his predictions is rather optimistic. Although our rate of sequencing will increase, the number of diseases we can link to a single gene is likely to be rapidly exhausted. Attempting to relate complex polygenetic risk factors to an actual phenotype, whilst also taking in to account environmental factors is far more complicated and requires large studies in relatively controlled populations. Many current 'studies' are actually meta-analyses performed on pooled data from other peoples work.
Once you think you may have identified these risk factors you actually need to do some real experimentation to understand what they mean at the cellular level, which will also take several years.
I am sure some of the current obstacles will be overcome but increased sequencing speed is certainly not going to be the only driver here. #knome
11/10/09
11/10/09
I'm going to be a nit-picker and not only point it out, but, correct it.
In 2003, we mapped the human genome...
it should read: In 2003, we mapped A human genome...
There is no single, human genome. Every human has a different one.
If all our genomes were alike, we'd be virtual clones of each other. There would still be differences, due to our DNA, but, there would be many many more similarities than what we see now. All the genetic differences would be gone.
So, calling it THE human genome is wrong. The genome they mapped was the genome for their test subject, and no one else.
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
Think about this: If you are young enough now where that "20 years into the future" still won't put you to be too old (I'll be 38 at the time, personally), you can get your blood checked before you become at risk for many fatal diseases. Doctors will be able to prescribe you personalized medicines that will prevent and/or cure anything that may cause harm to you, medicinally speaking.
This will GREATLY increase the average life-span of human beings, and when the cost falls enough, we can bring this new technology to developing countries, and help fight the millions of diseases that people face there on a daily basis.
Now, personally, with this new technology coming around, I'm hoping that the future won't end up like the movie Gattaca, where people are segregated based on if their genes are "perfect" or not. I doubt that will happen, but even so, I hope we as humans are wise enough at the time to NOT let anything happen like that. #knome
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
Those of us who’s been around long enough have heard all the medical bullshit for decades. How AIDES was going to be a thing of the past in 10-20 years back in the 80’s, how cancer will be a thing of the past in 30-40 years in the 70’s. One thing the old timers have learned is that there never seems to be a lack of doubt about any of the bullshit when the bullshit was proclaimed to the masses. I guess hope springs eternal.
The last thing I want to mention is that so what if what you said will become a reality, most of us won’t be able to afford it at the rate that costs are increasing. But mostly I just think what "scientists" are saying is pure fantasy. In fact, if medicine were like technology, computers would still be using vacuum tubes and be the size of football fields. #knome
11/11/09
2. Science reporters (and now PR departments of universities) make the wild claims, but that doesn't mean science hasn't progressed. "The medical bullshit" has developed Gleevec that cures chronic myelogenous leukemia when it's caused by a specific chromosome mutation which leads to a garbled protein. That's just one set of cancers, but damn awesome.
3. Genomics and other fields like protein folding make medical research more like computing. That doesn't guarantee accelerated results, but it helps.
4. You're right about population pressure and probably right about mass death, but most medical advances benefit rich people.
5. Jared has aides! #knome
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
Either way I stand by what I said. Idiocy = not relative. Scientists = not always smartest.
You equated being a scientist with being the smartest. Not all scientists are smart. The "best and brightest" aren't always scientists.
In the time periods I was referring to scientists were most definately not the smartest people on the planet. Those would have been the philosophers, artists, ruler, military leaders, and explorers that dominated in the days I was referring to of Alchemy, flat earth and other wild scientific theories. #knome
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
There's currently a very fierce tech war between all these companies to increase the output dramatically to get to the $1000 genome, and there are some big changes on the horizon. So in the coming 3-5 years we'll likely see a huge increase, and getting your genome sequenced will become much more commonplace.
08/10/09
It's even more than that with the latest hardware config and software upgrades, it's no sweat to get 25billion bases in about 8 days.
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
Of course, it also brings into account a whole slew of "class-creating dymanics" and talks of "superior genes". If you've ever seen Gattaca, it could become something like that. Or if you take it to the extreme, we'll end up with something like Gundan SEED & Gundam SEED Destiny (minus all the crazy mecha outer space action).
08/10/09
08/10/09
That and the whole eugenics war thing he alluded to.
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09