Comment

Comment on All Those 23andMe Spit Tests Were Part of a Bigger Plan

FoundTheVegan@kbin.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

Everyone who thinks this is legitimately bad. I ask, what do you think of AI art data sets? Sometimes, to make something new you have to have mass amount of data to start with.

I think people who paid to have a service, checked a box for their sample to be used for research, and the research to cure disease, have significantly lower reason to be upset than artist who used Twitter to upload their work and had said work used as a data set to train a product that will try to make their career even MORE financially immposible.

source

Sort:hotnew top

duplexsystem@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Here’s the difference, an artist can make more art. You cannot change your DNA. If someone steals some of your art it’s not the end of the world. You can make more. If someone has your DNA, you can’t change it. Once its out there that’s it. More over having someone’s DNA can give you significant insight into into just the person whose DNA you have but also their parents and their children.

source
- FoundTheVegan@kbin.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  Once its out there that’s it.
  
  But the subject put it out themslevss. More over, they paid for it be used. No one was tricked, captured or coerced in to giving their DNA.
  
  As opposed to an artist who is promoting themselves and their craft, used without their knowledge to replicate their work.
  
  source
  - WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    By biological father was an anonymous sperm donor before the technology to sequence a person's DNA for under 10 billion dollars was a thing. They did not give their DNA to ancestry. Their sister did, having no clue that her brother had donated. Yet ancestry has matched her to several nieces and nephews, outing her brother's history to his sister and the children who were never supposed to have access to that info. It's not just your own information.
    
    Similarly, one of my half siblings suddenly found out that his dad wasn't his birth dad.
    
    Anyways, he happens to be cool with the fact that he suddenly had contact with offspring who weren't supposed to know who he was.
    
    But our DNA is interconnected. It doesn't just belong to one person.
    
    source
    poppy@lemm.ee ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Happier version of your story:
    
    My dad an I both did 23 and Me. He made sure I knew he had done sperm donation before I met my mother just in case something came up. Well, it did! I have two half siblings from his donations! I think it’s cool, and I think he’s happy to know he helped two families have a child.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    probablyaCat@kbin.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    It's interconnected, sure, but I think you'd have an uphill battle that it doesn't belong to that person.
    
    source
  - NOT_RICK@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I mostly agree, except both my parents did it so they more or less have my DNA without my consent. They sure might not have the exact combination that I received from them but it’s more than I’m comfortable with.
    
    source
    LennethAegis@kbin.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Though the amount of possible permutations combined with epigenetic triggers you've activated makes it practically impossible to guess which combination you have.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Kolrami@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  You cannot change your DNA.
  
  Or can you?
  
  It’s basically just a matter of time and legislation.
  
  source
  - LennethAegis@kbin.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    That sounds like a lot of work. Some high dose radiation will get the job done much faster.
    
    source
Melpomene@kbin.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
If someone opts into the research, I have no problem with thier DNA being used for that purpose. What I do have a problem with is the medical community's belief that providing a biological sample for one purpose (for example, a biopsy) entitles them to use that sample in any way they see fit.

Henrietta Lacks comes to mind, here.

If I pay someone to I dunno, clean my house and I give them a key to enter, that doesn't give them permission to rent out my kitchen or borrow my clothes. Similarly, if I pay a company to sequence my DNA because its the only way I'll ever know where I come from (team adopted,) that should not give them permission to profit off my limited use sample unless they explicitly ask.

If they want to use the collected DNA for additional research, it isn't unreasonable to expect them to ask first.

source
- Staccato@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  23andme requires you to agree to what they ask, which is far more than what Johns Hopkins did for Henrietta Lacks.
  
  source
  - Melpomene@kbin.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Arguably, the only reason they bother to ask is the negative attention the medical field got from Henrietta Lacks. And they're still not great at it.
    
    source
    Staccato@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Informed consent laws were around well before The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks came out. I think there were earlier publicized examples of subject mistreatment (like Tuskegee) that already pushed the field to be better.
    
    source
thehatfox@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
There’s a big difference between a person’s DNA and a person’s art. DNA is the principle part of someone’s biometric identity, which can be used to reveal an enormous amount of information about a person. Hence it is not unreasonable to expect that its usage will be handled in a careful and clearly defined manner. Most countries have very strict laws on biometric data for a reason.

The same can not be said for a piece of art. While an an artwork will often convey aspects of the artist’s personality, and can conform to an identifiable style, it would provide no where near the level of insight into a persons physical identity as a DNA sample.

It also seems a stretch to conflate sharing something privately and publishing something publicly. The former will have expectations of privacy and control, regardless of whatever is stated any legalese incomprehensible to the average person. The latter however assumes a loss of control, to share something publicly is in some ways to cede it to the public.

source
AeroLemming@lemm.ee ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Oh sure, they’ll sell people’s DNA to insurance companies to help them discriminate against people, but it’s such a good cause.

source
Yewb@kbin.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Get outta here with your logical conclusions!

I like your take thank you!

source