2,323 karma · joined September 3, 2009
At this stage though I am more interested in how is it different from 100s of other AI applications that failed to take over the world or become the next big thing.
My need to criticize primarily came from your last paragraph where you are appealing to developers to jump in without realizing that that segment of your audience looks not very respectfully at phrases like 'buckle up' and 'amazing ride'
I would advise the author to check this out and see if he or the person he talked to was in one of the states that prohibit wiretapping without consent.
Strong words - try just asking and I'll answer :). Here is where the comparison comes from.. The same way that net neutrality aims to prevent carriers from promoting one hosts content over another, this decision aims to potentially prevent advising on drug response from one pharma company vs. another. Not that this is already happening, but policies should be as forward looking as possible.
The proposed regulations would require you to get the permission of a doctor (or other clinician) before you can have your DNA sequenced, and the data would be available only through the doctor.
Did you read my original parent post ? if not read it now - the last paragraph. I am not in favor of the govt having a doctor grant permission, but for FDA to make a universally trusted mutation screen through which all DTC companies operate. FDA makes not money, no monopoly and DTC companies have a way to get new findings added to the mutation screen through proper channels (published papers)
If we shut them down now, they definitely won't.
Exactly - that's why I say don't shut them down, regulate them.
To prevent service providers with a government granted monopoly from extorting payments from the rest of the economy?
Is this a serious danger in the personal genomics market? I was under the impression that the FDA wanted to prevent consumers from purchasing genetic tests without receiving permission from another government granted monopoly (doctors).
There is no govt.granted monopoly here. All they want is to be sure that a medical advice is givem by 1) qualifieed entity 2) if 1) is not possible then atleast based on research done by a qualified entity (i.e. published results)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265/full/461724a...
First, being in the field and a part of the teams that first published the general human genome and the individual human genome, I know that our current knowledgebase of genomic variant <-> disease correlation is not very vast. We don't even know how much more or less important are the particular type of variants "SNPs" that personal genomics companies mostly mine, in comparison with other types (Insertion/deletions , structural variations, copy number). At more serious genomics research institutes, we are still trying to figure out the genetic pathways that might be affected by this mutation or that - far from actually predicting their effects on actual physical condition. So does that mean personal genomic companies are far ahead of institutes in their research? I am not so sure.
Second, I think we need regulation here for the same reasons that we need net neutrality. I wouldn't be surprised if with time, the reports start advising you on which of the alternative drugs would be most beneficial for your genotype and disease. I would still be okay with it if companies like 23andme published their research or atleast cited publications - but I am not sure they believe in public access when it comes to their findings. (I can be wrong on that - so correct me if you know better)
Finally, I actually like the prospect of public driven science in addition to just organization/scientist driven, as that is likely to fund some actual science in addtion to pseudo science. So one solution I can think of is for FDA to approve a most trusted mutation screen for all these personal genomic companies to abide by. Let them focus on their core competency which is sequencing and customer interface and not research, If however they come across findings that might be beneficial, let them publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and apply to FDA to add it to the universal mutation screen.
http://www.amazon.com/Emperor-All-Maladies-Biography-Cancer/...
Really? no educated human? Well I guess I am an exception or at least was until I came to the US - because you see, I am educated and likely more highly educated than the author.
The author, most likely never having stepped outside the US, has no idea of the diversity of world sensitivities and cultures.
Does the author, for example, know of the Khmer Rouge symbol? I am educated and I didn't until I googled it.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/79176.stm
So stop using the word "planet" for the west .
you mean nothing good ever came from a for-profit non-open source company?