10 November 2009

let. to ed. re. "Your genome isn't that precious - give it away" -- New Scientist

We read with great interest the recent article entitled "Your genome isn't that precious - give it away" (Issue 2722, August 22, 2009).

Ms. Voss suggests that unrestricted and open access to genomic information will greatly benefit society with little lost to those who provide access. Summing up her argument she quotes her father: "I'm not worried, I'm just not that important."

Narcissists aside, we can all agree that we aren't that important to the rest of the world. However, what Ms. Voss fails to account for is the small cadre of people to whom we are that important. This set includes friends, relatives, employers, potential mates, and even stalkers who already look to Google, Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and other online sources for information about you or your close personal relatives. Further, data laid bare online could be used by adopted children (or even sperm donees) in an effort to find parents who might not want to be found. It is often these groups of people who we might especially want to limit access to our genomic information.

But sharing of genetic information raises concerns even beyond this group of close associates. In the past, people revealed private information about themselves only to close confidants – people they knew and saw regularly. Now, with the advent of social network websites (and new broader conceptions of personal boundaries and even ‘friends’), we nonchalantly reveal all forms of personal information to unfamiliar third parties.

This current laissez-faire attitude to privacy --likely to extend to personal genomic information, should be of special interest to athletes. Genomics has the potential to touch all aspects of sports, from using genetic information for real and fantasy draft picks, to mandatory genetic testing to screen out players at all levels of the game at risk for serious and unanticipated injuries, to valuation of a player worth; moreover, it is relatively easy for a scout, team manager, or an obsessed fan to surreptitiously obtain genomic information from a discarded bottle or a sweaty glove or racket, and submit it for analysis.

In fact, genetics has always played a major component in athleticism, whether its Lance Armstrong’s inhuman resting and maximum heart rates and substantially below average lactate levels, or Michael Phelps disproportionate arm span and hyperlaxic ankles. It is only a matter of time before genetics becomes an overt component in our thinking and analysis of The Game.

Professional and Olympic athletes are of course already familiar with managing their very public personal information, body measurements, performance statistics, and effectively real-time video surveillance for large fractions of their career, both on and off season. With the growth in understanding the linkages between athletic ability and genetics, public disclosure of personal genomic information of athletes may be just a logical extension of what is already in place. Analyzing how athletes deal with this new form of personal information will be of particular interest to the rest of society in learning how to manage and deal with the eventual disclosure of personal physical and genetic information.

Dov Greenbaum JD MPhil PhD
Mark Gerstein, PhD


Above text is an unpublished letter in response to:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.500-your-genome-isnt-that-precious--give-it-away.html
Your genome isn't that precious – give it away
New Scientist, 24 August 2009 by Katrina Voss
GENETIC tests are becoming increasingly fashionable, and it's easy to see why: they allow people to find out all kinds of things about themselves....

See comment on magazine site:
http://www.newscientist.com/commenting/browse?id=mg20327224.500&page=5

31 October 2009

Animal Symbolism

Supposedly....

Turtle is symbol of:
Patience longevity connection

Rabbit is symbol of:
Patience quick thinking timidity ingenuity fertility

Salmon is symbol of:
Determination fertility wisdom prophecy

Frog is symbol of:
Transformation creativity fertility water

30 August 2009

let. to ed. re. "Driven to Distraction: Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cellphone Risks" -- NY Times

I would like to respond to the recent article on the relationship between cellphone and other portable device usage and driver safety. I full agree with the premise of this article that this is a dangerous new phenomenon. However there are a number of connections that could have been probed a bit further. In particular, are there any instances when one is using a cell phone when driving that are actually safer than driving without one? That is, one could imagine that a drowsy driver on a dark street might have a easier time keeping alert and concentrating if he was carrying on a conversation over a cellphone rather than driving alone? Also, the implication of the article was that talking to someone on the cellphone is more dangerous than talking to a fellow passenger in the car. I do not know if this is always the case -- as anyone who has experienced a bunch of rambunctious young children in the car might attest to.


Above text is an unpublished letter in response to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/technology/19distracted.html
July 19, 2009
Driven to Distraction: Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cellphone Risks
By MATT RICHTEL

let. to ed. re. "Baseball’s Use of DNA Raises Questions" -- NY Times

Schmidt & Schwarz’s article raises serious concerns regarding the use of DNA testing in baseball. It is likely, however, that these concerns represent only the tip of the iceberg. Teams invest millions in their players; given this, would an owner pass up the opportunity to learn more about a player’s long-term potential through a relatively cheap genome analysis? Further, baseball, like many professional sports, sustains a strong statistics subculture that will likely see genetic testing as an integral component of a player’s dossier (along with height, weight and say ERA). In a worst case scenario, this testing would ignore the significant privacy concerns -- both to the individual and their family that share’s much of the same genes -- resulting from the disclosure of a person’s genetic predispositions. It could be even done surreptitiously by a fan or rival based on trace DNA remains lifted off of personal items.

Dov Greenbaum JD MPhil PhD
Mark Gerstein, PhD


Above text is an unpublished letter in response to:
Baseball’s Use of DNA Raises Questions
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and ALAN SCHWARZ
Published: July 21, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/sports/baseball/22dna.html

let. to ed. re. recent article in NY Times -- "Why We Need Health Care Reform"

I read with great interest the recent editorial advocating health care reform by the government. It is certainly impressive to see is the President writing in the Times. One thing in that was especially notable was that in one paragraph the President calls for insurance companies to pay for mammography and colonoscopy and the following sentence points how this will reduce the incidence of breast and prostate cancer. I wonder exactly how these two things are connected and to what degree these sentences show about the type of health and medical advice that the President is getting.


Above is an unpublished letter in response to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/opinion/16obama.html
Why We Need Health Care Reform
By BARACK OBAMA
Published: August 15, 2009

let. to ed. re. recent article in NY Times -- "Senator Moves to Block Medical Ghostwriting"

I read with great interest the recent article describing the issue where medical school professors have articles ghost written for them by writers commissioned by drug companies. The article pointed to the obvious conflict of interest -- and the way that drug companies were using this to unfairly market their products. It also pointed a finger at granting agencies and universities to somehow crack down on this behavior. While I agree that this is certainly a problem, I wonder whether it might make more sense to focus on journalists and publishers. Should it not be the case that an article can only be accepted into a reputable scientific journal if all the authors have been declared (i.e. no ghostwriters) and that the roles of each of these individuals and their conflicts are described somewhere in the text? I think this simple step would do a lot to clean up this problem and many other problems in scientific publishing.


Above is an unpublished letter in response to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/health/research/19ethics.htm
Senator Moves to Block Medical Ghostwriting
Minh Uong/The New York Times
By NATASHA SINGER
Published: August 18, 2009

23 August 2009

Biking in Fairfield County

Routes (Overview image)

BikeNFairfield [28-Jun-08]
BikeWestport [12-Jul-08]
BikeNWestport [14-Jun-09] (27 miles)
BikeGreensFarms [31-Jul-09] (~20 miles, cut short by rain) (Route is Google-Map KML ; also, route directly in Google Map)
BikeDarien [8-Aug-09] (~20 miles)
BikeNewCanaan [16-Aug-09] (21 miles)

Photos
General Flickr and Picasa collections (with map). Closeup on New Canaan .

Links
http://delicious.com/mbgmbg/FunBikeNFairfield
http://delicious.com/mbgmbg/FunBikeNWestport
http://delicious.com/mbgmbg/FunBikeWestport

See also earlier post on this subject.

A Question that I had on using Picasa

Just posted this in
Google Help > Picasa > Discussions > Picasa for Mac (Labs) > PC / Mac Compatibility
(http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Picasa/thread?tid=0e2e942a3e7212d6&hl=en ):

I'm using a mac with OS X and running vmware fusion with windows XP. Despite what's being said above, I want, recklessly, to try and go back and forth between both windows and mac picasa. Each has some advantages -- i.e. the mac version is faster but the windows one handles geotagging. I find if I go back and forth with the current versions of the program (as of Aug. 2009), things actually kind of work. (This wasn't true with earlier versions.) However, after a bit of edits on the mac, the OS X version of picasa often will create two copies of each picture in a folder, one where my edits are not properly applied. This does not seem to happen to the PC copy. Refreshing the folder doesn't fix things. Moreover, checking the "hidden" picasa files (.picasa.ini file and .picasaoriginals on the mac) reveals that these are not duplicated in any way and don't seem corrupted. What's happening? One workaround that I discovered is that if I carefully do "Folder Menu: Remove from Picasa..." on the whole folder and then "File Menu: Add Folder to Picasa..." things are usually fixed. But I'd like a cleaner solution.

22 August 2009

Trips to the West Coast in Spring '09 [TripSF + SeattleTrip]

Visiting Bay Area (+ Tucson)

Photos: Picasa, Flickr (including some shots of rows of grapes)
Google Maps: Running, Cycling
Lectures: 1, 2, 3, 4

Visiting Seattle

Photos: Picasa, Flickr (including some shots of famous artworks juxtaposed on a map with analogous ones from the East Coast)
Google Maps: Cycling
Links

11 July 2009

My current list of iphone applications

I got an iphone recently and predictably I've been very interested in acquiring all sorts of applications. Here's my (ranked) list at the moment:

Most Useful
Google, Mobile Fotos, Night Stand, Yummy, FullScreen

Somewhat Useful
Google Earth, RK_Free, NYTimes, Skype, Zillow 1

Not that Useful
RedDelicious, Trulia, iNapkin, RedLaser

(Suggestions to add to this list would be welcome.)

The above list was current as of the time of this post.

My continuously updated list is here.

29 December 2008

let. to ed. re. "Personal Genomics: Access Denied?" -- Technology Review

Dear Sir:

Misha Angrist's recent article astutely notes the states' misguided attempts to regulate personal genomics by treating the personal genomics product as more medical relevant than the data currently warrants. While Ms. Angrist sees these regulatory intrusions as somewhat benign, we see significant concerns: The state actions will effectively sanction those personal genomics companies that do meet the states' relatively low bar- sending a signal to consumers that it's ok to proceed impetuously; the State has your back! Similarly, Federal attempts assuage popular apprehension with genetic testing through the recently passed Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) will provide false security to those consumers concerned with their genomic privacy. Personal genomics raises many non-trivial privacy concerns that are as of yet unaddressed by either state or federal actions. Recreationally minded consumer oriented personal genomics companies that imprudently suggest that their customers share their genomic results often without concern for either their or their close relatives' (that share a large percentage of their genetic complement) medical privacy will expose their consumers current and potentially future genetic diseases and dispositions long before we even understand what the data means or how it can be used.

Dov Greenbaum JD MPhil PhD and Mark Gerstein, PhD


Above is an unpublished letter in response to:
http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/21250
Misha Angrist's Personal Genomics: Access Denied? Technology Review (Sept/Oct 2008)

let. to ed. re. "Lawyers Fight DNA Samples Gained on Sly" -- NY Times

Ms. Harmon’s recent article surveying the expansion of warrantless collections of DNA is particularly thought provoking; Whereas, a simple fingerprint merely identifies the individual, unrestrained collecting of DNA can disclose personal and private information, irrespective of the relevance to the case or the guilt of the suspect.

With rapidly evolving DNA technology, it is now possible to extract vast amounts of genomic data from the biological miscellany that is continuously shed over our daily lives. Science can discern details of a person's appearance, latent diseases, and even personality traits from this genomic data, exposing not only the suspect’s personal information but their relatives’ as well.

As law enforcement collects and archives DNA, this link to personal information will be perpetuated and privacy never completely restored.

Any legal or ethical discussion ought to be cognizant of these very real concerns, especially with regard to data security and sharing protocols.

Dov Greenbaum JD, PhD and Mark Gerstein PhD


Above is an unpublished letter in response to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/science/03dna.html
Amy Harmon's article: Lawyers Fight DNA Samples Gained on Sly

NY Times,
April 3 2008