Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many genes are highly conserved or consistent enough. E.g.: if there's a 1% difference between two people, then it's a bit like two very unique sentences that have a couple of small typos. They're sill recognisable, and it's also still pretty obvious that they're the "same". A gene sequence allows researchers to determine the amino acids that are coded for, and from those, which proteins match which genes. This can b…
But you can only know that by having a large sample of very “stable” (have few genetic irregularities) gene samples compared to a large pool of samples from people with very narrow and pronounced gene irregularities, right? Is this why it’s so hard? This feels more like a healthcare records keeping people and less like an “actually reading the data problem”. I can’t help but feel like some form of single payer health…
(Also our health system's IT is a hellscape, but one reason for that is that people would literally rather not have a working system at all, than one with less than impeccable privacy controls.
Personally I'd gladly sacrifice a fair bit of medical privacy in return for giving scientists greater insight into disease processes, but the average citizen here wants advanced healthcare without giving their data to research scientists. /facepalm )