It's great that she donated her body to science instead of letting it go to waste rotting in the ground.
It's also great that they didn't try to patent her genetics and that they're being shared with other researchers. This is how it's supposed to be done.
* It's great that she donated her body to science instead of letting it go to waste rotting in the ground.*
If her body were decomposing in the ground, that wouldn't be "going to waste". She would be providing nutrients back to the soil that made her life possible.
The problem with this is that the benefit to humanity from analyzing the effects of extreme old age on the human body and investigating the questions of extreme old-age heritability that super-centenarians raise is much greater than the benefit from the decomposition of an old lady's biomass.
Just read this on a Dutch newspapers' site. Not sure why the BBC site says her identity is secret, she is mentioned by name and it even has a picture of her:
Cool, but an awfully small sample size. The really exciting thing will be when DNA sequencing is cheap enough that we can sequence thousands, even millions, of genomes just to see what we can find out.
Its one of those things - you have to start somewhere, and sequencing the DNA of individuals with unusual characteristics ( such as long lived people ) is an interesting data set to have for future analysis and comparison.
Its amazing that its only 10 years or so since the first nearly complete human genome sequence was released and that the original projects budget was a couple of billion dollars, whereas now it can apparently be done for four or five figures.
Unfortunately, at least in the current environment, such endeavors would be shut down by "privacy" advocates.
I was a student at UC Berkeley when we wanted to offer every student a chance to sequence their genes. However, because of the efforts of the vocal minority (I certainly wanted to sequence my genes), that was cancelled.
I'm afraid of similar cultural artifacts limiting society's advance. I would have loved if everyone got sequenced so we'd have tons of meaningful data to do more genetics research.
Privacy concern for your genome or other medical data is no small matter in the USA.
I used to work on a research program for electronic medical records. At some point I realized that virtually no doctor was interested in what I was working on. However, HMOs and insurance companies had great interest. I came to conclusion the main application of my work would be to deny insurance to those with pre-existing conditions.
Sure enough, years later I had to apply for my own insurance and was denied because I had once been on high blood pressure medication for a month.
Genetic information is worse than a medical record. One can find out they may be predisposed to Parkinson's disease. There is little a person can do with this knowledge. However, an insurance company can definitely use it to deny coverage. It's like a credit rating that can never be repaired.
That's true, but if you have full control over who can see your information (i.e. "I allow it to be anonymized and used for genetics/cancer research in exchange for information about myself, for myself"), it's not a problem. I just get frustrated when the will of the vocal few override the welfare of the silent majority.
You really didn't understand the GP I believe. The 'silent majority' are the people who would suffer from this, they won't benefit. A select few will profit (vastly) from being able to sell insurance to those who don't need it and withhold it from those that do.
You having control over your information is a pipe dream, try facebook for starters and now think 'all my medical information, past, present and future' instead of your friends graph.
Privacy advocates tend to be a bit more educated about these risks than the general public and maybe know a thing or two about what has already transpired.
And for the record, you can't anonymize a genome, it is you.
Not arguing that was the case, and it may remain the case for things like employment, but when the new health care legislation comes into effect (and if it sticks) won't that cease to be a problem?
I'm wary of what would happen if I had interesting genes - didn't some plant genes, found in the wild, get patented? I'm not sure what my due would be, but I'd rather not get sued, at least.
It's also great that they didn't try to patent her genetics and that they're being shared with other researchers. This is how it's supposed to be done.