California, Facebook and Gino discussed on Life of the Law

Life of the Law
|

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

They committing to an agreeing to right now. Yeah, I mean, so you did you did an ancestry test yourself yet, so you must feel comfortable? No, not knowing, but knowing so I did not get my whole genome sequenced. And that's one distinction that I think gets lost a lot. So ancestry twenty three and me. They look at a lot of genes, but but they don't sequence your entire Gino. So they do these targeted sequencing where they're looking at an area that they know is correlated to something and in some ways that's better because they don't, you know, they don't have access to every single genetic information about you. They just have access to many and very important ones. So there's that's one line that I personally haven't stepped. Get your entire genome. It is possible and it's getting cheaper and cheaper. How much does it cost? Gosh. So I heard recently an estimate that you could probably do it for a couple hundred dollars. Is it through the same companies or now? No, although, you know what? That's a good question. Maybe we might have to look into that, but yes, so I also heard that there is some some murmuring now. We're kind of speculating. I don't wanna totally do that, but there are some people that are starting to talk about, you know, if we can use this information medically in a positive way, would it ever be a good idea to instead of have people pay to do this to actually pay people to do this? So there's, you know this. This is a way in some ways to address the concern of access that you know if there really is a lot of positive, good that can come out of your genome which there is, you know, there are. Many important decisions that you can make knowing your medical predisposition for something. So. Answering that speculative question, isn't it the same thing as lowering your insurance rate in a way the same thing as just giving you a reduction in your insurance in some ways, incentivizing you're not giving Tony coercion. So it raises questions about coercion and you know, but while right, it's a strong word. But I think in this case, it's not inappropriate. You know, it's doing that though at the same time that it's trying to address the question of access. Because if there is an advantage to having this information about yourself and being able to use it to make meddled medical decisions than that would go to people that can afford to do these testing. So paint people to do it or at least you know, covering it fully, making it fully covered, would address one ethical concern of living in a world where it's very cheap to sequence your genome, but haven't we been collecting blood samples from every child born in the United States since like nineteen eighty four, California? Yeah, in California. So we're we're. So if you have the blood of a newborn infant and that blood carries, I mean with that blood sample, you can do a fully full on sequence of a of a person, right? I believe that is also targeted. It, it's not the entire genome, but it is still at least some data on every child who has that who owns the in within the state of California who owns who has that data, who has that blood. So I think you're asking really pouring questions. And again, I think it to perfect here to recognize that in light of what we've learned about the role of Facebook care Britannica and twenty sixteen election, people are now asking new driven questions about other entities that are holding data or information about themselves, and people are increasingly concerned. So pa- differently. I don't think I don't think this is a miracle incidents. I think people are now starting to see connections between what is what does it mean to have unfounded trust and social media company and whether or not we're having same type of unfounded trust in the government in terms or other types of pregnant when it comes to biological information. And I think these are all great questions that we should be asking, and it really gets back to to lease earlier point, which is. Is, do we have the critical capacity to actually ask these questions in a way that's meaningful and puts demand on government to make sure that everything is done in our perpet- manner. It feels like right now, we're in that early stage and this has been for a very long period of time with genetic testing that we have all been wow, look what we can find out in a look what we can know about ourselves and that's gone on for a very long time while at the at the very same time, the ability to gather that information and not be aware of where that information can go and how it can be used either for or against you potentially is kind of that same euphoric moment when Facebook for starting everybody was jumping on. I don't care. Great. I can talk to so and so who I used to know in high school and we can, wow, I saw them again. It's like we live in these moments where we're where we have this new technology and we're excited about it. And we as a society, we don't really. Stop and say, wait a minute, where's all that going? How's it going to be used? And in terms of, you know, the blood that was captured, my daughter was born in nineteen Eighty-four, so I know that somebody somewhere has her blood that they could potentially test and who knows how that could be used. I mean, and the potential for that. That information to be either in positive hands or enhance that could have alterior motives or could have self interest motives who knows what, where that goes, you know, there's an old saying in Silicon Valley, you know, when someone's offering something for free, you're the product, right? So the person is a product and I think you know, while twenty

Coming up next