Home >

Redefining genetic privacy

Experts discuss how advances in genetics will require a rethink about privacy. How do we protect it and would we forgo it over improved health?

This article is an interesting insight into how advances in genetics will likely require a rethink about privacy and how we protect it.

It reports on a meeting at the recent 2010 AAAS conference in San Diego.  There  a panel of experts criticized US policies and offered solutions to the ethical issues associated with how DNA can or might be used to identify characteristics about us we might want to keep private. It is based on the US legal system, but the same issues would be applicable in Australia.

Australian discussions

I have come across a few people that for differing reasons have no issues with people knowing intimate stuff about them.  See TechNyou blog, Cheap Genetic test

Most people I chat to about this, however,  do have concerns, but are also torn by the fact that such knowledge could help understand a lot more about human disease and how to treat or prevent it in the first place.  If there was to be a choice, not that there needs to be such a stark choice, many of these people would opt for better health over privacy.  That is, they would be willing to forgo some of their privacy if it meant better health care for them.

Some of the comments are interesting as well.

Jason

TechNyou

Stem Cells Restore Sight in Mouse Model

Mouse embryonic stem cells have been used to replace diseased retinal cells and restore sight in a mouse model of retinitis pigmentosa.

Science Daily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132737.htm

Reference:

The research team is led by Columbia University Medical Center.

The study appears online ahead of print in the journal Transplantation (March 27, 2010 print issue).

Nano zinc in sunscreen. It gets in – apparently?

Apparently the nano zinc in sunscreens is getting into our bodies and who knows what it can do to us.  At least that would be a reasonable conclusion to draw if you read The Australian today (25 Feb 2010, page 5)

The article

Following is the headline and first couple of paragraphs from the article:

Sunscreen’s zinc factor ends up in blood

PEOPLE who use a lot of sunscreen could be at risk of having “larger than normal” quantities of zinc in their bloodstream, with new evidence showing zinc particles penetrate the skin and are absorbed into the body.

Geochemist Brian Gulson, of Sydney’s Macquarie University, has provided the first conclusive evidence that zinc oxide nanoparticles – which appear in many translucent sunscreens – can be absorbed by the body and remain there for extended periods of time.

The horse’s mouth

Being the skeptic-type that I am I thought this was a bit extreme based on what I knew already about Professor Brian Gulson and CSIRO’s research into this.  So I went to the horse and got it from his mouth – Prof Brian Gulson, that is.

Here is what Prof Gulson had to say:

“We have not found that ‘zinc oxide nanoparticles can be absorbed by the body”

“Our study has shown that zinc from sunscreen can reach the blood in small amounts. We have not found any difference between conventional zinc oxide sunscreens and nanoparticle sunscreens and we don’t know what form the zinc is in.”

“It is also worth noting that in our study the increase in zinc we saw in blood was about one thousandth of the normal levels of zinc in blood.”

My mother always said, don’t believe what you read in the papers.

Jason

TechNyou

Nanotech to enable a computer memory a million times faster

A forest of erect nanowires will form the basis of computer memory that will be a million times faster, an IBM physicist said at this week’s ICONN conference in Sydney.

AtoZ Nano: http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=16121

Human enhancement: are we going cyborg. Slide show

Selected slides from secondary teacher workshop titled, Human enhancement: are we going cyborg

Last Friday I ran a workshop at the VCE biology conference in Melbourne titled Human enhancement: are we going cyborg.  A number of teacher expressed interest in obtaining the slides I used.  So here they are.  I have uploaded them to Slideshare as well.  It has inspired me to upload a few other relevant workshops, so keep checking or look up TechNyou on Slideshare
Human Enhancement: are we going cyborg

View more presentations from TechNyou.

Jason
Technyou

Living forever might be cool, but do we want to?

Want to live forever?  The right genes will help.  New research confirms variants of the FOXO3A gene are common in people who live past 100. If you want to live a long, healthy life these are handy genes to have.  See recent PNAS paper.

Variants of the FOXO3A gene are common in people who live past 100.  Researchers from Christian Albrechts University in Kiel, Germany, studied hundreds of people in their 60s through to those that have cracked the 100 barrier. They found that certain variations of the FOXO3A gene are common in 90 year olds, and even more common in 100 year olds.

It backs up similar studies suggesting that these gene variants are global in their link to longevity.  The big picture implications are relevant to genetic treatments that might help us crack the century and do it with all our physical and mental faculties intact – which opens up all sorts of ethical questions.

How long can we live?

Even if I have a genetic test that confirms I have the longevity genes, it would be a reasonably safe bet that those such as myself in the 40-something age bracket won’t be benefiting too much from this and similar research.  We will just keep drinking red wine and hope to die happy. But will your child live to a ripe old 120?  What about your children’s children?

Even the conservative scientists are confident we will extend the human lifespan, and we are actually doing that, though an obesity epidemic in some of the developed nations might put a spanner in the works.  But assuming we significantly extend our lifespan, do we really want to?  I guess that depend on who you talk to. When this comes up in conversation at any TechNyou (yes, get used to the new name) workshop there is always the question of, why do we need to, there are already too many people on this planet…and so on. Even school students are tuned into the population debate and question the need to live forever.

However, there are plenty of people that want to extend their life as long as possible and a few (many?) that would like to live forever.  Is immortality possible?  According to some, it is.

Immortality,  or close to it

If you want some views from those that would happily live forever and are trying to find ways or people who can find ways to make it happen, the following will give some insight: The Methuselah Foundation has put together the Mprize that offers $3.8 million for the first increase the lifespan of lab mice which can then be extrapolated to humans.

Also Aubrey de Grey, a computer scientist and self-taught gerontologist believes that children born today will be the first to live to 1000 years old.  For de Grey, ageing is just a disease and if we can cure the disease we can eliminate ageing.  Easier said than done, but when has that stopped people trying?  There is some good stuff about him and his thoughts on TED

Other deGey info SENS

And for me…

Personally, I would love to live forever simply to see how the world will be in 100, 500, 5000 years time.  I have no desire to live forever simply for the sake of living, or any fear of death, but the geek in me is intrigued about whether the human race will ever travel to the stars, perfect artificial intelligence, unlock the secret of immortality, maybe find out the biggest question of why are we here. I am a bit like a kid not wanting to go home in case I miss something.  But then as one older gent put it to me in a recent workshop: “The world is moving too fast.  How do I get off?

Jason

TechNyou

Who wants to live forever? The rights genes will help

Variants of the FOXO3A gene are common in people who live past 100. If you want to live a long, healthy life these are handy genes to have.

PNAS: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/8/2700.full.pdf+html

In English

The link is to a scientific paper in PNAS. It is not that technical, but just in case it roughly means the following:

Variants of the FOXO3A gene are common in people who live past 100.  Researchers from Christian Albrechts University in Kiel, Germany, studied hundreds of people in their 60s through to those more than 100 and found that certain variations of the FOXO3A gene  were common in 90 year olds, and even more common in 100 year olds.

It backs up similar studies suggesting that these gene variants are global in their link to longevity.  The big picture implications are relevant to genetic treatments that might help us crack the century and do it with all our physical and mental faculties intact – which opens up all sorts of ethical questions.

Debate continues over labelling of GM foods

CHOICE magazine says Australia’s food labelling laws for GM foods are too lax reigniting the debate over how foods containing GM ingredients should be labelled.

Two recent articles

NineMSN is what I would refer to as unbalanced and likely to lead to confused or misinformed people.

The Australian Food News (AFN) is a lot better and gives a better overview of reality, though why they didn’t quote directly from the FSANZ web site I am unsure

Nine MSN story

AFN story

FSANZ

Or you could check out the government regulator (Food Standards Australia New Zealand – FSANZ) that is responsible for enforcing the food labelling laws and make you own mind up with the complete set of facts in front of you.

FSANZ Home

FSANZ labelling page (starting point anyway – you will have to click on more links from this page)

GNTIS now TechNyou

Those changes I mentioned that were going to happen in 2010 are starting.  We have changed our name to TechNyou as we now get involved in all emerging technologies.  Bits of the web site still refer to GNTIS, but this will all be fixed over the next week or so.

There are more changes afoot so stay tuned

Jason

TechNyou

Genetic Technologies hits U.S. firms with patent infringement

Genetic Technologies has filed a patent infringement suit against nine U.S. biotechnology companies, including Bechman Coulter and Monsanto.

Australian Life Scientist: http://www.lifescientist.com.au/article/336501/genetic_technologies_hits_u_firms_patent_infringement?eid=-2