I was watching a recent PBS Nova episode about analyzing the human genome, and how the future is one where any illnesses related to genetics will be predictable to a high degree of confidence. While I understand that it is a bit esoteric for a national discussion that includes people dumb enough to holler things like this, the inevitable future of insurance needs to be broached. In the future, insurance will be dead because of genetic analysis.
I'm not a tin-foil-hat sort of fight the future wingnut. I can't wait for the future. It's gonna' be great. But that doesn't mean that many things that the future holds do not carry concerns along with them. Genetic understanding, perhaps more so than any other endeavor, is a hornet's nest of thorny issues. And that's absolutely great. All of the ethical issues that must be addressed are actually a blessing in disguise, not an imposition on progress. They force people to realize a mechanistic nature to our reality.
We are mechanistic, and we are learning more about the gears with every passing day. Many of the systems in our modern world are based on not knowing. For example, I buy car insurance because I don't know if I will get into an accident. Likewise, health insurance is based on not knowing. But as we discover more, we are starting to know. We are starting to understand.
For example, a person has a genetic make-up that guarantees that they will contract an ultimately deadly illness. This person is a guaranteed loss for any insurance company. If this is known, no company would ever accept this client. How can we fix this? We could force insurance companies to cover these patients, but could we force them to charge certain prices? The government would be forcing a company to accept a loss.
Would we see the emergence of cheap insurance providers who specifically provide only to those with clean DNA, thus leaving other insurance companies to provide incredibly expensive care to those without? Both DNA and economics would conspire to create a genetic underclass who cannot afford health care.
This future is inevitable. Some day, we will know with incredibly high confidence the healthful future of anyone who has their DNA sequenced. And if we still have insurance companies, why should they not be allowed access to data that is substantive to a prospective client's health? Understanding the human machine and insurance based on chance do not mix.
So what do we do? We either restrict health insurance companies to the point where they become quasi-governmental entities or a fool's business, or we stop pretending like the conservative wackos in this country know at all what they're talking about, and join the rest of the Western world in government-provided health care.
Showing posts with label genetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label genetics. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Space Dinosaurs
A new study by Ronald Breslow from the Journal of the American Chemical Society, yes, we have one of those, has speculated on the nature of life elsewhere in the cosmos. They specifically question whether dinosaurs could have become the dominant, intelligent form of life on other planets.
I'm glad to see scientists catching up to what 80's kids have known for over two decades.
I'm glad to see scientists catching up to what 80's kids have known for over two decades.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Thursday, April 22, 2010
How Far My Ownership Goes.
The New York Times has a story about a Native American tribe that has sued The University of Arizona and reclaimed some blood samples taken from the tribe because the DNA was being used for research other than that which was initially discussed. They discuss the legal issues, and, as with most popular stories about science clashing with dogma, the only argument presented in favor of the science is that it's "good science," and that progress demands that we make concessions in the degree of control individuals have in the data that they submit.
One of the biggest issues is that the DNA indicates a link between the tribe and people making the trek over the Bering land bridge, which doesn't exactly jive with the tribes creation story (shocker!) that says that they were plopped there to be the Grand Canyon's defender.
This isn't a matter of moral or ethical problems. If a research institution wants to be tender and understanding with dogmatic beliefs, then that's their choice, but not their legal or ethical obligation. The blood was taken, and the DNA is nothing more than information, now. They have more blood, they haven't "lost" any DNA. The University didn't take it from them. The situation is similar to a researcher telling a man that, if he has a blue string in his pocket, he's, I dunno', psychic. The man empties out his pocket and the researcher finds many strings of different colors. None blue, but the researcher remembers the colors that he did see. If the researcher then writes a paper on those other colors, what harm has there been?
There are certainly a great number of ethical issues with DNA, especially as our ability to analyze it gets ever-greater, but this story is not one of them. The Universities actions did not diminish the tribe or its people. They did not steal anything. They did not harm the people. Just because a group of backwater, uneducated people don't like science clashing with their official story of their creation is not a basis for a fucking law suit.
Indian Tribe Wins Fight to Limit Research of Its DNA (NYTimes.com)
One of the biggest issues is that the DNA indicates a link between the tribe and people making the trek over the Bering land bridge, which doesn't exactly jive with the tribes creation story (shocker!) that says that they were plopped there to be the Grand Canyon's defender.
This isn't a matter of moral or ethical problems. If a research institution wants to be tender and understanding with dogmatic beliefs, then that's their choice, but not their legal or ethical obligation. The blood was taken, and the DNA is nothing more than information, now. They have more blood, they haven't "lost" any DNA. The University didn't take it from them. The situation is similar to a researcher telling a man that, if he has a blue string in his pocket, he's, I dunno', psychic. The man empties out his pocket and the researcher finds many strings of different colors. None blue, but the researcher remembers the colors that he did see. If the researcher then writes a paper on those other colors, what harm has there been?
There are certainly a great number of ethical issues with DNA, especially as our ability to analyze it gets ever-greater, but this story is not one of them. The Universities actions did not diminish the tribe or its people. They did not steal anything. They did not harm the people. Just because a group of backwater, uneducated people don't like science clashing with their official story of their creation is not a basis for a fucking law suit.
Indian Tribe Wins Fight to Limit Research of Its DNA (NYTimes.com)
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Who Wears The Genes in This House?
Monsanto, the most evil corporation on Earth if you have seen Food Inc., is currently in an antitrust suit with a bunch of states and companies. Again, all of this comes back to Monsanto's ownership of their RoundUp-Ready soybeans.
First off, Monsanto is not the most evil corporation in the world. They, like many other large companies, are taking advantage of a totally fucked patent, trademark, and copyright world to the detriment of, pretty much, everyone.
What's at issue is that Monsanto owns the genetics to the seeds, which means that if the seeds blow onto your land and grow, Monsanto owns those plants and any possible cross breeds that may arise.
This hasn't always been the case. Previously, it was understood that life could not be patented. This was generally recognized for moral reasons, but I have a different interpretation of the situation.
It has to do with what a patent does. Nominally, it provides a temporary monopoly on a product. It does not prevent people from owning something. For example, Eli Whitney makes the cotton gin. A competitor makes one illegally and sells it to me. I am now the owner of that cotton gin. Even if Eli sues his competitor, he cannot take the one that was already built away from me.
It is not a right of sale, since if Eli builds some cotton gins and sells them, I can lawfully sell them again. The only part left is manufacture. A patent is a monopoly on making the thing. Eli Whitney has the right of manufacture on cotton gins for a set time.
This cannot apply to life. Life is, by its nature, replicative. When a device is made that can reproduce itself, the maker relinquishes, by the very nature of their creation, the right of replication. A patent cannot logically apply. This would apply to any machine that replicates itself. If I create a robot that, when left to its own devices, wanders about, gathering materials, and builds a copy of itself, I cannot patent that.
It's absurd that life can be patented. Our legal system and the judges who allowed this should be ashamed and either throw themselves or be thrown off of a cliff. Morality need not be applied, it's logically nonsensical.
Change the law. Change it now. Life cannot be patented.
Monsanto’s Seed Patents May Trump Antitrust Claims (Bloomberg.com)
First off, Monsanto is not the most evil corporation in the world. They, like many other large companies, are taking advantage of a totally fucked patent, trademark, and copyright world to the detriment of, pretty much, everyone.
What's at issue is that Monsanto owns the genetics to the seeds, which means that if the seeds blow onto your land and grow, Monsanto owns those plants and any possible cross breeds that may arise.
This hasn't always been the case. Previously, it was understood that life could not be patented. This was generally recognized for moral reasons, but I have a different interpretation of the situation.
It has to do with what a patent does. Nominally, it provides a temporary monopoly on a product. It does not prevent people from owning something. For example, Eli Whitney makes the cotton gin. A competitor makes one illegally and sells it to me. I am now the owner of that cotton gin. Even if Eli sues his competitor, he cannot take the one that was already built away from me.
It is not a right of sale, since if Eli builds some cotton gins and sells them, I can lawfully sell them again. The only part left is manufacture. A patent is a monopoly on making the thing. Eli Whitney has the right of manufacture on cotton gins for a set time.
This cannot apply to life. Life is, by its nature, replicative. When a device is made that can reproduce itself, the maker relinquishes, by the very nature of their creation, the right of replication. A patent cannot logically apply. This would apply to any machine that replicates itself. If I create a robot that, when left to its own devices, wanders about, gathering materials, and builds a copy of itself, I cannot patent that.
It's absurd that life can be patented. Our legal system and the judges who allowed this should be ashamed and either throw themselves or be thrown off of a cliff. Morality need not be applied, it's logically nonsensical.
Change the law. Change it now. Life cannot be patented.
Monsanto’s Seed Patents May Trump Antitrust Claims (Bloomberg.com)
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Dog Breeds and the ASPCA
I was just looking through the most recent ASPCA newsletter, and it referenced puppy mills.
Well, I'm sorry to say, puppy mills are a fact of life. There is nothing we can do to stop them. Jackass yuppies and people who want to be yuppies buy pure-bred dogs as status symbols. This drives desire and thus value up. With high value comes ersatz examples, such as Chinese knock-offs of Prada bags, because most people can't afford true pure-breds.
Illegalizing puppy mills is ridiculous. We can't stop it any more than we can stop drugs or knock-off bags. There is a demand in the market and it will be met. What we can do is eliminate the demand.
We should not only legalize pure-bred puppy mills, but subsidize them. Make them MASSIVE and federally regulated. Churn out doggies in mind-boggling numbers. The result? You drive the value of the dogs way down because suddenly everyone has one and it's not a status symbol. This forces those sefl-centered pieces of shit to seek out new status symbols in the form of new, designer dogs, like Labradoodles. This results in greater genetic diversity, fewer problems, and better dogs.
Because right now, lots of good dogs are born broken. If we can eliminate the system which generates those genetic instabilities, we can make the world a better place. We can do this with economics.
Well, I'm sorry to say, puppy mills are a fact of life. There is nothing we can do to stop them. Jackass yuppies and people who want to be yuppies buy pure-bred dogs as status symbols. This drives desire and thus value up. With high value comes ersatz examples, such as Chinese knock-offs of Prada bags, because most people can't afford true pure-breds.
Illegalizing puppy mills is ridiculous. We can't stop it any more than we can stop drugs or knock-off bags. There is a demand in the market and it will be met. What we can do is eliminate the demand.
We should not only legalize pure-bred puppy mills, but subsidize them. Make them MASSIVE and federally regulated. Churn out doggies in mind-boggling numbers. The result? You drive the value of the dogs way down because suddenly everyone has one and it's not a status symbol. This forces those sefl-centered pieces of shit to seek out new status symbols in the form of new, designer dogs, like Labradoodles. This results in greater genetic diversity, fewer problems, and better dogs.
Because right now, lots of good dogs are born broken. If we can eliminate the system which generates those genetic instabilities, we can make the world a better place. We can do this with economics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)