GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact • Hacker News Board

Re: GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

#191

Post by sschueller » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 1:24 PM UTC

ironjunkie wrote: post #67

I don't want to spread FUD but why would ANYONE in their right mind give their DNA to a company in Silicon Valley that is explicitely using Google as a model for Data privacy ? (The founder of 23AndMe is the ex-wife of Google founder). Even worse, people are actually PAYING quite a lot to get the privilege of having that company playing with your most private data. This field needs to be heavily regulated. In 20 year…

In theory they could make a patent for some medications based on your gnome.

  - So you paid to give them your data
  - They patent something that in essence belongs to you
  - You need that cure you need to pay them again.

Re: GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

#192

Post by Retric » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 1:53 PM UTC

ig1 wrote: post #184

Retric wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re assuming a lot with those statistics. Paternity tests involve random ~50% of your dna. Sperm samples are generally contaminated and thus less clear cut. But, people’s relatives have been used in the past for these tests dropping the bar even further. However, being related genetically is not enough. Some people have twin siblings they don’t know about pointing out being related is not nessisarily mean you know…

Those aren't false positives in that they represent real genetic relationships (i.e they're identical by descent), as the database size increases you don't increase the false positive rate in any meaningful sense at higher match levels. If you've got a identical twin then you're right that their child will be genetically indistinguishable from your child. But that's down to the nature of genetics rather than anything…

False positives don't necessarily mean the test was executed incorrectly. It often means you are testing for something closely related to the information you want.

If a test failed because _ then it failed independent of why it failed. If your long lost twin causes you to be involved with a paternity suit or homicide investigation then that's both a false positive and a significant problem.

Re: GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

#193

Post by Retric » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 1:54 PM UTC

mcculley wrote: post #173

Retric wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are not false positives, because you ran the test wrong. Suppose a male with red hair, green eyes, and AB+ blood actually has those traits they are just not enough to unlikely identify someone. Adding more genetic traits on it's own is not enough for example you have identical twin or even triplet separated at birth. The core issue is DNA marks are not independent though people often assume they are.

Society will have to adapt to a better understanding that this is true. Keeping one’s DNA secret is not going to be a useful defense against ignorance of how DNA works.

Worked for the last 10,000+ years and still works today.

Sure, at some point in the future it might get fixed or always fail, but until then you need to deal with today not some mythical perfect future.

Re: GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

#194

Post by mcculley » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 2:10 PM UTC

dilippkumar wrote: post #156

mcculley wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand these concerns. I have published my data from 23andMe ( https://enki.org/2017/10/17/publishing-my-genome/ ) ( https://github.com/mcculley/genes-genes ). Can you share what you think the bad outcomes would be? What am I missing? Edit: As people bring up the insurance risk, yes I did consider that and mention it in my post. I am personally not concerned about it and think the advantages outweigh the…

This talk[0] makes a very good case for why keeping your DNA a secret is a good idea. It's also probably the only talk at defcon that I've watched that has scared the hell out of me. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQDSgBHPfY

That is a great talk! Thank you for posting it. This is the caliber of counterargument that I was looking for. I had addressed in my post ("maybe ... somebody figures out a way to target me directly with a personalized disease"). I have added a link to it in my post.

Re: GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

#195

Post by krageon » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 2:18 PM UTC

bencollier49 wrote: post #167

this_user wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could use a EU-based competitor and then force them to delete the data through a GDPR request. Should work in theory, although I haven't tried it.

You should be able to force a deletion through GDPR in any case, if you're European; 23andme have a European office as well.

Using the EU office of a US corporation and assuming they will actually act in your best interest without them having been forced to in the past (and even then...) is very unwise, as multiple examples have already show us in the past. Please just use an EU lab (they exist, and they already removed your data before the GDPR if you asked) and accept that it's maybe a hundred euros more expensive. At least you can be a lot more certain you will not be invasively data mined later on.

Re: GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

#196

Post by krageon » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 2:36 PM UTC

Shank wrote: post #85

ironjunkie wrote: post #67

I don't want to spread FUD but why would ANYONE in their right mind give their DNA to a company in Silicon Valley that is explicitely using Google as a model for Data privacy ? (The founder of 23AndMe is the ex-wife of Google founder). Even worse, people are actually PAYING quite a lot to get the privilege of having that company playing with your most private data. This field needs to be heavily regulated. In 20 year…

> In 20 years we will be able to extract all type of crazy information from DNA and it might be our biggest liability if it is shared across private companies. This will truly be the dystopian future, in which every business will make a decision based on your public DNA profile. I really doubt this. I've been genotyped by 23andMe and the most interesting information I've seen from their health reports are a handful o…

For stuff like this to be used by most people (that is to say dystopically and objectively wrong, like in a hiring process) we definitely don't need any sort of rigorous research. They already have those Myers-Briggs tests that have no actual basis in reality, not to mention the kinds of hoops you jump through to get your CV read that make no sense. The trouble is not (as far as I'm concerned) that this information will be used by competent, levelheaded scientists. The trouble is that everyone else might start using it.

Re: GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

#197

Post by krageon » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 3:10 PM UTC

aaavl2821 wrote: post #141

reaperducer wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using genetic data to find new drugs strikes me as a very good use of this data. Selling it to anyone who pays the price seems like a bad idea. Which is inevitably what will happen here the next time the company needs to "maximize shareholder value" by "utilizing its assets to their full revenue potential." Next thing you know, I end up paying higher insurance rates because some distant relative I don't know is predi…

Is the concern that GSK will resell this, or that 23andme will? I wouldn't be as worried about GSK reselling data to insurance companies. They already have access to sensitive health information for many many people and have had access to this data for decades. You literally cannot get a drug approved without collecting sensitive medical info on patients, because you can't tell if the drug works without collecting th…

You make a lot of bold claims in this post and provide no evidence. I think in this case the claims are far enough out there that some evidence is warranted.

For example: "They already have access to sensitive health information for many many people and have had access to this data for decades". In what country is this? Everywhere? You would be wrong about that, unless you mean a specific group of people that gave them this information voluntarily (in which case you made it sound a lot more exceptional than it is).

"Many drugs now require some genetic testing to be done to justify a prescription". How many? I've interacted with a lot of people who take (or have taken) prescriptions, and have met precisely zero that needed a genetic test. Of course this doesn't mean you are wrong, but maybe you have omitted critical data required for forming the opinion that you are correct. I already mentioned the number (and perhaps the type of prescription is also important). Also again, where in the world is this?

These aren't the only two claims I raised an eyebrow about, but they are a good start.

Re: GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

#198

Post by coryfklein » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 4:07 PM UTC

strstr wrote: post #165

Severian wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other than your DOB and sex, can you just provide a fake name/email and go from there? Only people I want to share my genetic info with is my family, and they know how to contact me.

Problem is that it’s easy to correlate dna data against each other and infer who you are (assuming some small number of relatives have also used the service). In fact, a find your relatives service is built in.

It still certainly seems like it would limit your exposure to practical consequences. If a health insurance company decides to use DNA databases when calculating premiums, it would certainly be more difficult to use your DNA data if your identity is merely inferred by genetic analysis rather than voluntarily self-implicating yourself.

Re: GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

#199

Post by a_136_chiffa » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 4:13 PM UTC

DangerousPie wrote: post #182

dayvid wrote: post #24

I asked 23andMe if there was any way to delete my genetic data from their site after the Equifax hack news. From their response: "23andMe and our third party genotyping laboratory will retain Genetic Information, date of birth, and sex as required for compliance with applicable legal obligations, including the U.S. Federal Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA), California Business and Professional…

This may be true, but I don't see how it applies to this story. You need to explicitly opt in for your data to be used for research. So if you have asked for your data to be deleted it would obviously not be used for this kind of work.

For now.

Re: GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

#200

Post by a_136_chiffa » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 4:19 PM UTC

coryfklein wrote: post #198

strstr wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is that it’s easy to correlate dna data against each other and infer who you are (assuming some small number of relatives have also used the service). In fact, a find your relatives service is built in.

It still certainly seems like it would limit your exposure to practical consequences. If a health insurance company decides to use DNA databases when calculating premiums, it would certainly be more difficult to use your DNA data if your identity is merely inferred by genetic analysis rather than voluntarily self-implicating yourself.

If they don't find your data, they will likely use your relative's data to infer the risk. I doubt your cousins, uncles and aunts would think twice before signing up with their real names to one of the "find where your ancestors came from for $69.99!" adverts.

This industry should be heavily regulated and have engineered security layers making sure you always know where your data is, who has or had access to it and how it can be used.