TAG: A new era of genomics
Complete your responses by Friday 1/30 at 5pm (EST).
Watch: https://www.ted.com/talks/
In the Ted Talk posted above, Richard Resnick discusses the genomic revolution.
1) What is your initial response to the video?
2) According to Resnick, eventually there will be a “tipping point” where whole-genome sequencing is cheap enough that nearly everyone in the US will be able to get sequenced. What do you think the likely social and research effects of this “tipping point” will be? Describe both positive and negative effects.
3) Other comments/questions to discuss about the genomic revolution?
I can see that the ability to sequence entire genomes will be helpful in preventative medicine, and is clearly the next big step in revolutionary medicine. It clearly will make great strides in preventative medicine, perhaps at an expense to the public. While it might seem invasive I think that we have already come so far in medicine and this wouldn't be too hard to introduce, as long as it is introduced in a way that will keep it confidential. Resnick's suggestions that iPhone apps and even being able to sequence your partner to discover if they are the cheating type is absurd, but I see how it is possible. I just hope that society doesn't start to treat it so half-hazardously where presidents will display their sequence in order to prove they are genetically better than other runners. If it gets to this point, which I fear it might, then we will have a whole new type of racism on our hands. Just another characteristic for people who think that they are perfect will use to separate themselves from those who think they are beneath them genetically.
ReplyDeleteI think if we are not careful it just might go that route of using genetic information as a tool of discrimination. I watched a very interesting film called GATTACA. it is about eugenics and genetic discrimination. It's a cautionary tale of how the genetic revolution could go awry. We are almost there with the rise of "designer babies." Assisted reproductive technology has reached a pint where it is now more or less capable of choosing what genes parents would like their children to posses. In some way it could be used for good such as the elimination of degenerative diseases. But, it becomes negative and dangerous to society when we use such genetic information to craft what society may deem as "beautiful." Such as choosing the hair or eye color of the baby.
DeleteLaura,
DeleteI like your point about genetic racism being a potentially negative consequence of socially applying genome sequencing. It creates an additional method of classifying people based on something they have no control over. There are also potential economic repercussions...are employers and health insurers less likely to hire/cover someone who tests positive for genes that put them at high risk for breast cancer or neurological diseases? Excellent point!
Laura- I really like the point you made about genetic sequencing creating a new form of racism. I fear that if our society recognizes this as a new "norm" then we will become more competitive than ever. And thats not necessarily a good thing. It's no secret that our society is obsessed with technology, but this takes things to a whole new level. Do you think that this risk outweighs the potential research benefits that genetic sequencing could provide? Or is research the most important aspect when it comes to our future?
DeleteMy initial reaction to the video was "that sounds like the origin of the events of the Divergent series". I felt fear of what irresponsible or ill meaning people could do with access to other people's sequence and fear of our society's propensity towards prejudice and judgements. When rational thought pushed through my dystopian book filled mind, however, I recognized the positive life changing aspects of this technology. Medically, this is an amazing advance. Early interventions and gene therapy could greatly decrease the years spent with disability and illness. Extrapolate what Resnick was talking about to treating mental illnesses and you can possibly take the guesswork out of finding the right medication for each patient. That advance could convince more people to seek treatment.
ReplyDeleteSocially, my fear still lingers. The ways this advance could be abused, whether for frivolous relationship tests as Resnick commented or to attempt to modify physical and emotional traits through the genome, are a bit scary. However, with any new technology, there is always an unknown element. There can be unforeseen positive effects and unforeseen negative effects. But we need progress, so we push forward, for better or for worse, and try to safeguard against negative outcomes and focus on what we can do with the positive outcomes.
I agree with the social implication that you mentioned Cara. I too feel that gene sequencing might be used as a basis for further discrimination. Since you mentioned the film Divergent, this topic of gene sequencing brought to mind the film GATACCA which was about a society in which your genes determined what social status you have. I think gene sequencing will one day save many but might be the start of another era of social injustice. If gene sequencing is used correctly, great things can happen.
Deletethought the presenter, Resnick was able to both entertain and inform us on the genomic revolution. The video had a good balance of humor and information and I thought this made for an enjoyable watch. I think this could have very beneficial effects, for one it could make drugs personalized to patients and this will help remove a lot of the side effects caused from taking a drug or undergoing treatment. On the other hand, there are negative effects that this could pose. For example, finding out deadly incurable diseases that you are high risk for. If there is nothing that can be done about it, then why would you want to know.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand your thinking that it could be meaningless to find out by genome sequencing that you have an incurable disease. However the way science is progressing it seems we could eventually find a way to not only prevent currently incurable diseases from expressing symptoms or being expressed at all by changing or "fixing" Ones genome so that it doesn't have the possibility of expressing an incurable disease.
DeleteI agree with Laura. At the point that we are able to distinguish these so called "incurable diseases" we would hope that with the ability to sequence them, we are able to use this information on the sequencing to prevent the disease from being expressed. Therefore I think that finding these new incurable diseases would be seen as a positive because scientists could work to find new treatments and prevent even more patients from experiencing the new diseases.
DeleteFinding out if you have a deadly incurable disease can be both positive and negative. If we are able to find the disease, then we may be able to prevent any more harm from causing and maybe stop the disease from being expressed. However, if nothiing can be done to stop this disease, then it may be too late for the person, but not for future generations.
DeleteInitially, I find it very exciting and some what daunting that in a few years our genes will play such a vital role in not only health care but in social relationships as well. While watching the video I began to imagine a world in which our genes became a key factor in our role in society. I think from a medicinal point of view the “tipping point” in which all genes can be sequence efficiently will open up vast doors into providing new medicine tailored to the individual receiving treatment. I also think that the gene sequencing will have beneficial contributions to preventative care; by analyzing someone’s genes a doctor might be able to predict diseases such as cancer, and began routine screening, as mentioned in the video. However, I think the social implications of gene sequencing might cause new problems to arise. Genes might become a way in which social status is identified meaning from birth you might be classified as having good or bad genes. This might lead to further segregation of our society and might provide another basis for having groups of individuals more privileged than some. One question I am still pondering is: will the genomic revolution cause us more harm than good, or is it the possibly one of medicines biggest achievements?
ReplyDeleteDanielle,
DeleteIn response to your ending question, I think that as long as those at the forefront of this medical advancement keep in mind the real goals and do not get carried away, genomic coding will be a great positive achievement. This is still a question I am pondering however as well due to the fact that there is always room for human error and poor decisions. I guess it is one of those things where we will just have to wait and see what happens.
Danielle,
DeleteI completely agree with your statement about the fact that this can be a new form of discrimination for society. It's an interesting opinion because people always need some new way to judge others and this revolution allows people access to an individual's most unique genetic information. I think that with every achievement there is always a negative aspect to it, and therefore I think that this is one of medicine's biggest achievements. Well not necessarily the biggest, but it is a huge advancement in medicine and shows that the improvements in technology are truly benefiting the world. It's up to the physicians to effectively use this information and better the healthcare system.
Danielle,
DeleteI also have the same ending question as you. It's definitely something to think about, whether sequencing will create more harm than good or if it will be a great advancement for medicine. I do believe that genetic sequencing will be a mostly positive development as long as the use of genetic information is regulated in some fashion. Perhaps since there are laws and acts that protect against discrimination, such as the EEOC, there is hope that laws against discriminating based on having specific genes could be put into act as well. It would also be wise if it was made illegal for insurance companies to use individual genomes to determine price and people's eligibility for health/life insurance.
Resnick leaves the audience with the statement "it is in the hands of humanity to wield the ability to sequence the human genome for the betterment of mankind”. This is what scares me. The speech started off making me think about how great these scientific and technologic advances that we are making are. I know that there are so many benefits to the sequencing of the human genome such as disease prevention, gene therapy, etc. I don't trust to use this information just for the greater good. I worry that there will misuse of this data and I think that people’s individual genomes, like medical records should be kept private. There isn’t a need for people to check their compatibility or a need for presidential candidates to prove they are genetically the better candidate. Making these sequences public allow for society to create another divide. Another divide like the gaps that SES and racism have caused.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion that there isn't a need to use people's genomes for more trivial, insignificant things like the ones you mentioned. I think using genomes for things like this will just cause people to be paranoid about things that wouldn't really improve their lives. I also agree with keeping genome's private. Like a person's medical record, the genome contains information about one's health and this information shouldn't be released to the general public for any reason. Doing this would basically be like releasing someone's HIV/AIDS status. It could lead to discrimination in many ways and add to the social gaps we already have, like you said. Even though you have great points I feel that you have very little hope in the good of man, which is a little disappointing. Yes, man has shown it's ugly side over history, but I think it's always good to look to the good that could be done. I'm not saying to completely ignore the harm that could be done, but have more hope in the good.
DeleteI definitely agree with you when you say that the quote Resnick stated is a scary one. When it comes to dealing with crucial information that could transform many technological advances and scientific medicines today, it is important to know what people are getting themselves into and to be well-informed. I agree that there are benefits to gene sequencing such as gene therapy, prevention, etc, but it should not rely upon just the general population because the new information may be interpreted incorrectly and in an unwelcoming way that may lead to rejection of this information. People need to use this information for the right reasons and for the greater good of society.
DeletePersonally, I think that the genomic revolution is a great thing. It's something that people have been working on for years and it finally has practical implications now that it's done and science is advancing. I was initially shocked by the rate at which Resnick said the genomic movement is developing. I think it's amazing that the price of getting your genome sequenced will eventually get to a reasonable price for everyone, but it's more amazing that this price will be reached in the the near future (since many goals in science take many years to accomplish). I also think that being able to use the genome as a "universal diagnostic" is great.
ReplyDeleteThe "tipping point" will have both positive and negative effects. Positive effects would be that genome sequencing would serve as a preventive measure. More people will be able avoid or catch and treat disease earlier than normal. If people knew they were more susceptible to certain conditions or disease they would be able to modify their lifestyles in order to reduce their risk of developing said disease. People would also be able to live longer lives. In terms of research, aside from what has already been done, genome sequencing could help nations improve the way they live based on the genetics of the people living there. However, genome sequencing could lead to discrimination against people who don't have desirable genomes if information like this were to be made public. Wide-spread genome sequencing could also lead people to be paranoid about insignificant things found in their genome. A good example of this is the "cheating gene" mentioned in the video. A controversial topic that has already been presented in terms of genomes is "baby making". Many people think that it would be unethical to choose genes that will determine physical and internal genetic characteristics in one's child. Because this revolution is developing so quickly this may be a problem we will have to encounter sooner than later. While longer lives are desired, it can also be a downfall. With people living longer, as mentioned in the video, world populations will have to worry about feeding more people, specifically with GMOs because they grow quicker, are cheaper and are more abundant. Living longer could also have negative effects population-wise on countries that are already over populated and specifically within countries that are not developed and don't have updated sanitation systems. What good is living a longer life, if you will be living in crowded, overpopulated, dirty cities and countrysides?
Overall, as Resnick said, this genomic revolution is and could continue to be a great thing as long as people intend to use it for the better and are able to keep the playing field fair for all.
Natalia, I really liked all of your points. Like you, I was struck by how fast this revolution is happening. I think it is important to articulate and talk about the ethical concerns that you brought up "sooner rather than later". Otherwise, we will have big problems on our hands and no action plan for how to deal with them.
DeleteYou brought up every point that I thought of while watching and listening to this talk. The speed with which we have achieved such progress with gene sequencing and the genomic revolution is astounding, but I agree with you that while good things can come of this, so can bad things. I think especially now in this day and age, there are a lot of people that would be willing to take advantage of this amazing opportunity for unethical uses. While I don't think having people dictate what we are and aren't allowed to do with the technology that we have created (using "baby making" as an example), I do believe that we could possibly avoid genetic discrimination and other unethical issues by creating rules for what we can and can't do to the genes of our offspring.
DeleteI find it both very exciting and very frightening that in a few years our genes will play such a large role in our health, but also on our relationships. As with everything, there are both advantages and disadvantages. The "tipping point" will create many benefits, but could also be detrimental to our society as a whole depending on how people use the information. Although many new doors will open and lives will be prolonged, many social implications will arise. As Resnick mentioned, routine screenings can prevent cancer or at least provide early detection. Genes as initiated can differentiate one person from the other in different ways than they already do. People will begin to use this data in the wrong way. People's genomes should be kept private. It is their information and what they decide to do with it, is their choice. People do not need to be able to check their compatibility in the ways mentioned in the video to prove that they are the better option. Genome sequencing should only be used to save lives, rather than reveal hidden information. As long as people use this information for the better and not for discrimination, the genomic revolution could become one of medicines greatest achievements.
ReplyDeleteI think when you think of the humanity, this DNA sequencing should have nothing to do with it. Especially human compatibility, these things should be left alone, and let people decide on their own, and i think there is a beauty to that. Like you said it is possible that this can be used badly, and that is a bit of concern.
DeleteAfter reading your response, I completely agree with you. However, there is always a chance that people can use the information in a discriminatory way even if the genome were to remain “private”, which is probably my biggest fear when thinking about the genomic revolution. Unfortunately, it does not seem as though ANY of our health records remain private, since most records are easily accessed through online provider networks and computers. I like to think that the world will not use individualized genomes in a negative way, and instead help others, but the only way to guarantee complete privacy is for an individual to refuse genomic sequencing and remain without knowledge.
DeleteYou have a very important point. As there are many positive factors that will significantly impact the health of many patients, the genomic revolution does have the possibility of revealing hidden information. As you suggest, by continuing to keep genetic information private, the genomic revolution will be able to assist the health care community in providing more individualized, and hopefully healing treatment for patients.
DeleteInitially, I was taken aback by Resnick's TEDTalk and the immensity of the possibilities that come along with genomic coding. Particularly, when Resnick compared the advancement of coding to the progress of the internet, apple and the computer, I realized how quickly genomic coding would be commonplace and widespread if it follows a similar progression. In terms of the part of the talk where Resnick discusses the "tipping point," I believe there are both pros and cons to this. On one hand, genomic coding as a common technique would allow for the diagnosis of diseases early and create a longer lifespan. Additionally, it may even be able to help find a cure for certain diseases and illness, vastly improving medicine. On the other hand, it may put us on the path towards attempting to create a utopian society, which as we have seen in many novels, movies and historic attempts, more often than not ends disastrously. Furthermore, with the increase in lifespan due to genome coding and already decreasing world's supplies, we may end up depleting food stores more quickly that we originally thought causing potential world starvation epidemics. Overall, genomic coding definitely has some wonderful positive effects, we do however, need to make sure we do not get carried away too quickly and cause other disastrous problems.
ReplyDeleteShannon, I really liked your comparison between genetic sequencing and historical attempts at creating a Utopian society. Having everyone's ancestral and genetic information widely available could cause social and political issues down the line that we can't anticipate. While I do agree that this is unlikely and the pros far outweigh the cons your sense of caution is not unwarranted.
DeleteName: Ryosuke Kimura
ReplyDeleteI was amazed about how much we can know about the person, the disease, or even human relationships just from DNA sequencing. I think what we can do with this is very mind blowing.
If the DNA sequencing becomes widely available with cheap costs, i think this would boosts the healthcare very much. Some of severe disease like Cystic fibrosis, and Cancer are genetic diseases, and DNA sequencing will allow doctors to be able to act and treat patients quickly to avoid the worst cases.
On the other hand, he mentions an interesting point in the video by comparing food production and population growth due to the genomic revolution. I know absolutely nothing about genomics and what researchers have found so far, but he stated that we will need to keep eating genetically modified food to keep up with the population growth from genomic revolution. I feel that there will be less natural food if we continue with this genomic revolution. In addition, this could allow us to control the population possibly, and id imagine things won't go well if this technology is used badly. (I may have watched too many fiction movies, but who knows)
I am sure there will be more research to be done, and things will turn out differently. At this point, i think this genomic revolution is a brilliant thing to our society. Id be very interested to see where this will go.
Ryosuke,
DeleteI completely agree with you about genome sequencing helping diseases like cystic fibrosis, cancer, and genetic diseases. It would be a great thing if science could help cure horrible diseases and provide more cost-effective prevention for people instead of expensive chemotherapy and other treatments.
I also don't know enough about genetically modified foods, he definitely did make a generalization about that without using much evidence to prove his point. Why would we become more dependent on GMOs if we increase the lifespan? Are there not other ways we can produce more food for people cost-effectively? I think he should have used more evidence before making that claim without support.
My initial response to the video on the genomic revolution was that of surprise and excitement. I did not know how fast the genomic revolution was going to take off. The amount that cost of genome sequencing is supposed to fall yearly was very surprising that technology can be created fast enough to reduce price so much. It is amazing to me that the initial sequencing of the human genome took many years and cost 3.8 billion dollars, while Resnick is stating that the cost of genome sequencing per base has dropped 100 million times.
ReplyDeleteI think that there will be many social and research effects of the “tipping point” of genome sequencing, and whether they are good or bad I think they will become integrated into society and soon people will take them for granted. For example, the current cell phone technology we have is amazing, I can get on the internet anywhere I am with my phone, and no one is amazed anymore that I can get to Google Maps in the middle of nowhere to get home safely. With genome sequencing becoming a standard aspect of society, I think that genome sequencing will become a factor of everyday life and will be used to pre-determine cancer risk, see the genome of a fetus and decide whether or not to take the pregnancy full-term, and that people will get their genome sequenced to test compatibility for partners. Some of these will be positive such as preventing disease in advance. However some of these will be negative as well, such as parents might start hand-crafting their child’s genome to create a superior human race through their children, which could decrease genetic variation. I think society will begin to pay more attention to the factors you cannot change but are visible and measurable (your genome) and pay less attention to the way you life your life that makes you who you are.
Society as a whole needs to be aware of the fast changes that are coming our way in many aspects of life: health, relationships, research, and others. If people are aware of technology and are informed, then society can make logical decisions about the best way to use new genomic technology to improve the world.
That's a great analogy to cell phone technology. I've thought of that before-- if we were to tell someone 50 years ago that in the early 2000's, everyone would have hand-held devices that give us instant access to all information known to man and we could communicate in real time with anyone in the world, it would seem unreal and like magic. Today, it's commonplace. And I agree with you; this could be the case with the human genome as well. It may be that instead of, or in addition to, filling out questionnaires for dating sites, people will submit their genomes for compatibility tests. I think creating this "superior race" may be a bit more of a stretch, as I would guess the majority of parents like the idea that their child develops into someone who is unique, rather than the same as everyone else. Not sure that many people would want to mess with genetically modifying their children. I do see this, however, as a tool for deciding whether to terminate a pregnancy as opposed to taking it to full term. That seems likely. You make some good points!
DeleteAfter watching this Ted Talk, my initial response was complete awe. After the visual depictions that Resnick used to show how large the human genome is, such as the use of 3,000 screens with one base on each pixel, it truly is amazing that one machine had the ability to sequence 3 billion bases. Ultimately, the video was reinforcement to show that the ability to sequence the human genome was an amazing breakthrough in the field of science and medicine, and perhaps one of the greatest breakthroughs that the world will see for a very long time.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is wonderful to be able to provide whole-genome sequencing, I think there will be varying consequences. To start with the positive, I believe that whole-genome sequencing will be able to prevent or treat hundreds of diseases, while also saving time and money of both researchers and patients. Ultimately, this will help increase the quality of human life, while also increasing years of life. As one can see, even in the very early stages of research (as depicted by the out-dated computer), whole-genome sequencing still has a long way to go, yet is already improving the lives of thousands. However, although it is such a great discovery, there will also be negative effects of being able to sequence the entire genome of everybody in the United States at relatively little cost. For example, Resnick stated that using genome sequencing, some cancers can be detected earlier by discovering deletion of bases in the genome, which in a lifetime of any individual, suggests a 90% chance for the development of cancer. However – what about the other 10% of people who have the deletion of bases and do not develop cancer? Although the benefits may outweigh the risks and save thousands of lives, 1 in 10 individuals who have the deletion of bases as shown through sequencing will endure constant worry and unnecessary screening throughout his or her lifetime. Not only this, but what if genome sequencing advances to a stage in which healthy individuals must report their personal health information under certain circumstances, such as in Resnick’s example of running for president? This can possibly cause negative social effects throughout the country and the world, where the people may be out-casted for something that they cannot control, such as the possession of a gene for future cardiomyopathy. This would give rise to extreme discrimination, hence creating a devastating effect on society, where perhaps there will only be survival of the fittest.
Overall, I am excited for the genomic revolution to continue making advances toward helping people who already have or at risk of developing certain diseases and medical conditions. Although I am weary about the negative implications that it may have for unnecessary testing (such as the cheating gene) and discrimination, I hope that the genomic revolution will not get to a point where it can harm individuals instead of helping them. However, this is simply a hopeful thought, and I wonder what you all think about this question: Do you believe that the future of the genomic revolution could potentially harm society – such as by reporting a “healthy” genome over a “sickly” genome – or is this something that will be illegal, such as how it is illegal for insurance companies to ask about previous medical conditions of consumers?
I completely agree with you in so many ways! I also was amazed after learning about how big and exciting the human genome is and how this will be a huge part of the future. I also agree that this will be helpful in preventing and treating diseases, increasing life expectancy and hopefully cost effective too. You also brought up an interesting point that what if you are in the 10% of people with the deletion to cause cancer but don't ever get it, you might live your whole life in fear or differently because of this information. I also agree that this sequencing could cause discrimination which I think our society needs to get rid and has been for the last few years, thus we might never reach the goal of equality and no discrimination. To answer your question, I believe that the future of the genomic revolution could definitely harm society and the only way to prevent discrimination against having a sickly genome would be to have this information illegal. I believe that genome sequencing should only be used for medical reasons, such as preventing diseases and treating people and that it should not be used in social aspects of life like jobs or insurance or even behaviors like finding out if a person has a cheating gene. It should be used to save lives, not for entertainment or as another reason to discriminate against someone.
DeleteMaking the information illegal is an interesting point - I did not think about this. I simply believed that the information should be kept private within medical records, but as I reflect on this idea, it is likely to be easily attainable by anyone who can hack into online health care records (which is many more people than we think!) If genome sequencing was only allowed for medical reasons, like you suggest, it would be a great way to help keep discrimination out of society. However, if genome sequencing was deemed illegal, it could probably still be done with the assistance of underground facilities. For example, thousands of abortions are performed each year in countries where abortion is illegal. This is simply thinking the worst though, and hopefully the high-technology services used to sequence genomes will not be made widely available outside of professional medical settings.
DeleteAlthough I believe it should be only used for those who are sickly and ill, I also believe that there is a scale of ill and those who want genome sequencing should be allowed to get it. As for the laws on it, it should not be deemed illegal as that usually leads to things done incompetently and wrong. If there are adequate laws placed on this system, such as making the information only available for the person and whomever they deem allowed to view it, it could help ensure the information is used for the right reasons.
DeleteWhen watching this video, I was initially inspired and awed by Resnick's information on the genomic revolution. He mentioned all the possibilities that would come about with genomic sequencing and gave specific examples on how knowing individual genes could assist those who have specific genetic diseases and conditions. After thinking carefully about the information stated though, and especially when he said that it is rare to see a logarithmic curve shoot up so rapidly on the curve, I reconsidered my initial thought because of how easily accessible all of this information and technology would become. The "tipping point" comes in because on one hand, all the genetic information and technology would definitely be an advantage for people who do actually have serious genetic conditions that may be prevented with the genetic revolution. However, easily accessible information comes with a price because that means people who are misinformed or have no interest in the good of genetic sequencing may have access to this information as well. This type of information should be used for the improvement of the medical and scientific community. If we are going to use this type of information to treat patients, we need to be sure that our resources are being used by professionals efficiently and effectively to have the positive results Resnick talked about in the video.
ReplyDeleteAlissa,
DeleteI agree with your view on the potential advantages and disadvantages of having great access to the gene sequencing. On one hand, we would be seeing early detection of diseases combined with stronger diagnosis and treatment for all patients. On the negative side, having direct access to your genome could potentially bring up a different form of prejudice against others. In addition, unethical research may be conducted to further enhance an individual. These are all highly unlikely situations, but still possible.
Alissa,
DeleteYour caution regarding the risks of the genetic revolution is not unwarranted! I agree in your saying that easily accessible (confidential) information comes with a price, because that means people who may be misinformed or who have no interest in the good of genetic sequencing may use it to their advantage. I also agree in your saying that this information must be used for the good and improvement of the scientific and medicinal community. I feel that this information should definitely only be accessible to genomic professionals. Because of this, I feel that laws will have to be put in place banning those who are not rightfully allowed access to this information, from accessing it, especially to use it to their advantage. If this can be done, and proper preventative measures can be put in place by the government to prevent unethical research, than I feel that the genomic revolution's resources can be used appropriately, in order to yield positive results for science and medicine.
1) What is your initial response to the video?
ReplyDeleteMy initial response was that the evolution of this technology is advancing extremely rapidly. It’s almost overwhelming. It seems like it is really powerful technology that could change the way the world functions. It will allow for potential for diseases to be detected even before they occur, allowing for early diagnosis and treatment, leading to better health outcomes and ultimate quality of life. I think it also has the potential to change social interactions, and much more, so it must be approached with caution and legal regulations must be given significant consideration to protect individual’s rights and privacy.
2) According to Resnick, eventually there will be a “tipping point” where whole-genome sequencing is cheap enough that nearly everyone in the US will be able to get sequenced. What do you think the likely social and research effects of this “tipping point” will be? Describe both positive and negative effects.
The positives to this “tipping point” are fairly obvious—we are looking at advances in the medical world and also efficiency in detecting genetic traits. Resnick mentioned in the video about testing for the “cheating gene;” couples may use genome sequencing to determine compatibility, and employers may request access to select workers that have certain traits. Also mentioned in the video was political campaigns using this kind of information to sway voters’ opinions. This leads to the negatives—the information obtained from someone’s genetic make-up can be very powerful. If a certain sequence predicts that 90% of people with a particular combination will develop cancer, that leaves 10% who will experience undue anxiety, fear and stress, all for nothing.
3) Other comments/questions to discuss about the genomic revolution?
The genomic revolution will affect much more than just science and medicine. It has the potential to alter politics, socioeconomics, social interactions, ethical decision-making and more. There needs to be substantial discussion about what can and cannot be done with any information obtained from the genome. Would someone want to know that they have a 95% chance of developing a fatal illness or disease that has no cure? How much of the information that doctors find out from the genome must be shared with their patients? While this revolution has the potential to accomplish great things, possible complications and repercussions mustn’t be taken lightly.
After watching this video, I initially felt very surprised that by studying genomics, we can uncover so many things about the human body and the community as a whole. Our DNA structure and genes hold a lot of valuable information, which only makes sense. It amazed me that physicians didn't think to study the genomes of individuals earlier or take it into account. As the "tipping point" approaches, making genomic testing much more readily avaliable and cheaper, there are both negative and positive side effects. Starting with the bright side, diagnosing treatments such as cancer and other rare diseases will be easier through being able to get sequenced. Physicians and other health professionals can catch diseases before they worsen and efficiently see more patients through this system. Patients and families are also able to save more money through less testing and procedures. On the other hand, the easy access to this information is that people may know more than they want to about themselves or other people. As Resnick points out, people may base who they elect as president due to genetic testing and how prone someone is to get a certain disease. It can add to another form of prejudice and pathway to discriminate against a certain gene. Overall, I think that this new revolution will mostly bring about a better healthcare system because people who have rare diseases or just diseases in general can be treated efficiently and save money as well.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your view on the negative effects of the genomic revolution. After the tipping point, the information will be so easily accessible that it would become impossible to control what people do with the information - and it is highly probably that it will become a way to discriminate. My greatest worry is that it would become a big factor in employment or health insurance, which would put a lot of people at a great disadvantage. But i am still hopeful that the information will have more positive effects than negative - it was amazing how the patients that Resnick included in his presentation were able to improve and figure out what conditions they really had.
DeleteInitially, the thing that struck me most about Resnick’s account of the genomic revolution was the speed at which it is taking place. It is amazing to think that about a decade ago, it took years to sequence 3 gigabases of DNA and now it takes a week to process 200 gigabases. These data made me think that maybe the “tipping point” Resnick describes is coming too fast. Everyone may be able to get his/her genome sequenced, but will we know what to do with this information? Genome sequencing can be hugely beneficial, as demonstrated by Resnick’s examples of the women with the TP53 mutation and the Beery twins. However, these examples involved very rare, very specific genetic mutations. What about all the diseases that are not yet (and may never be) clearly linked to specific genes? Even if we are able to sequence everyone’s genome in a few years, I think that it will be much longer before we can really use this data to significantly improve health outcomes.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we do not know the full potential of the genomes we're sequencing. However, I think sequencing many people and studying those sequences, looking for similarities and differences in people with diseases that haven't been linked to specific genes could give us much more insight into those diseases and how we can prevent them or at least have early intervention. I think that sequencing everyone's genome will be a stepping stone to learning how to use the data to improve health outcomes.
Delete1) What is your initial response to the video?
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the way he showed us how technology has evolved, and how new discoveries are found so often that they replace old technologies such as typewriters with faster and smarter computers and how studying the human genome has lead to many new and exciting discoveries about how these genes form who we are. It is very interesting to learn about how certain inserts, deletions and other mutations in the genome are the reasons behind cancer and other illnesses or conditions and even social behaviors. This really paves the way for preventative medicine since there has been much research on curing illnesses but not on how to prevent illnesses or why a particular person may get cancer and another person doesn’t and I think will definitely benefit us in the years to come.
2) Obviously, there will be both positive and negatives to everyone being able to get sequenced. The positives include being able to screen people for specific illnesses and thus being able to prevent or treat quickly illnesses, thus everyone will be healthier and live longer. Another pro is that sequencing will allow for personalized treatment too, which would be 100% effective for that person, rather than giving them a drug that cures about 85% of people. Just like technology, there will be more and more information available on genomes as more research is conducted. Even though this research is needed, people can use this information for the wrong reasons. I don’t believe that sequencing should be used to see why someone is shy or inclined to cheat. I don’t think that serves any lifesaving purpose. People might also use this information to discriminate against other people and in the book series Divergent, the government tries to delete the negative or bad genes to create a society without bad behaviors such as cowardice, dishonesty, fear, low intelligence and selfishness, but this backfires and even though this is fiction, this is still scary. Another thing is that not everyone is going to want to be screened or know what is wrong with them. For example if someone gets screened for one thing, but then the test results show they have a terminal illness that wasn’t related to what they were being screened for them, they might not want to know that. Another con is that there is so much information that is still unknown so therefore some data will be unusable. Also, genetic modified foods has a lot of cons and there is a lot of mix feelings toward them. Overall, I feel that genomics are important in the medical field and I think that is where they need to stay in order to benefit us but I hope we do not become as obsessed with this just like technology since that has impacted us negatively in so many ways.
Samantha,
DeleteI also really enjoyed the way Resnick compared the development of the human genome project to the technological developments we see from typewriters to computers. You brought up a great point about how so much research is on curing illness/diseases, but not on finding how to prevent diseases. I think that this is one of the most exciting things about genetic sequencing, because hopefully we will be able to prevent more diseases and be able to learn which populations/specific people may be more susceptible to certain diseases. I really like the point you made about genetic sequencing paving the way for medicine that will be 100% effective for each person. Instead of trial and error, doctors will be able to prescribe medicine that will definitely treat a specific patient. Although you would hope that societies wouldn't go as far as erasing negative genes in people like in Divergent, it is a scary thought as to how much societies will want to use genetic sequencing. Despite the potential negative effects of genetic sequencing, like you, I am hopeful that sequencing remains in the medical field in order to maintain positive effects.
1) What is your initial response to the video?
ReplyDeleteAfter hearing Richard Resnick discuss the potential uses for researching more about the human genome, I was utterly amazed. Richard Resnick provided one example of how one woman suffered from multiple forms of cancer due to the TP:353 gene mutation. The implications for early detection of this gene mutation from family history could potentially extend or possibly save the lives of her family members. He then goes on to another example of the twins receiving a sequencing exam and the results showed the twins having a series of mutations on the SPR gene. Due to identifying this mutation from gene sequencing, both the twins are living a normal life. To be honest, the stories Resnick was telling sounded like it came straight from a movie. It is absolutely amazing how many lives can be saved. Further down the road, healthcare professionals will be able to detect disease, properly treat their patients, and elongate their lives.
2) According to Resnick, eventually there will be a “tipping point” where whole-genome sequencing is cheap enough that nearly everyone in the US will be able to get sequenced. What do you think the likely social and research effects of this “tipping point” will be? Describe both positive and negative effects.
The positives would be early detection of fatal diseases which would lead to better diagnosis and treatment. There would be countless lives saved from gene sequencing. However, I believe one of Hitler's goals was to reproduce a perfect breed. Although a far stretch, this could very well happen as individuals' entire genome sequences would be readily available. A new form of prejudice may arise for not having a certain gene or possibly not having their gene mutated to have a different phenotype. Although, I would really love to focus only on the positives!!
3) Other comments/questions to discuss about the genomic revolution?
I'm excited to see how far healthcare will be able to improve with gene sequencing improving quickly!
I thought it was very interesting that you brought out the point about the "perfect breed." I believe that it's not that far of a stretch since many couples would probably do genetic testings before having children to see if they are compatible. Pregnant mothers would also likely do these testings which could tell them of any problems the child might have. That could lead to some people only having kids with the traits that they are looking for are that are favorable. I really do hope that this is not the case and that this information is not used in this way. I also believe that the tipping point is still decades away from now since the human DNA sequence is so long that it seems impossible to know enough about different diseases to have the tests available to everyone.
DeleteWhile a drastic example, as you stated, I thought it was very interesting how you applied a historic failure to this topic. I, too, think the consequence of “a perfect breed” is extremely troubling, and I think it’s intriguing, as well as troubling, to think about the ways history can potentially repeat itself as new technologies like this come into play. For me, the obvious benefits from sequencing and screening are very exciting, but I hope that as this technology develops so will the strictness of the regulations in order to prevent past atrocities from ever repeating themselves.
DeleteInitially I found the thought of genomic sequencing extremely exciting, however as the video progressed I began to develop a few concerns and questions. Would this lead to genomic discrimination? How will this affect the way employers recruit and hire new employees? Is it really ethical to make decisions about a president based on his genetic sequencing? I was shocked at the rate that genomic sequencing has developed since its completion in 2003, and even more astonished at the fact that the cost of genome sequencing per base has dropped 100 million times. I was also amazed at the sheer size of genomic sequencing. The visual comparisons that Resnick used, including comparing the human genome to three thousand TV screens with pixels on it left me in complete awe of the size of project. It seemed unbelievable that just one machine was able to sequence three billion base pairs.
ReplyDeleteAs the tipping point Resnick talks about approaches, our society must be careful as to how we use genetic sequencing. I am sure that one day, babies will be genetically sequenced as part of their tests right after birth. So, before that day is upon us, our society needs to decide what we are going to use these genetic sequences for. There are some positive effects as well as negative effects—I’ll start with the positive effects. The way we deliver healthcare would be revolutionized because we will be able to pre-determine many diseases which will allow medical professionals to act and diagnose quickly. It also opens up the doors for cures to be found for certain diseases and with genetic sequencing, we may be able to live for five to twenty years longer than we do today. Medically speaking, genetic sequencing is an incredible tool that will definitely be used in the future and will vastly improve medicine. However, there are some negative effects to consider. Socially speaking, I think that genetic sequencing could change the way societies operate. Imagine each time you went to an interview, the employer searching through your genetic sequence file and asking questions about your gene that indicates possible future cardiomyopathy or the gene that indicates cheating. The entire hiring system of each company will change and employers will be able to be pickier. To me, it just doesn’t seem right for your employer to know that information about you. That’s personal information. Genetic discrimination will emerge throughout the world and once genetic sequencing is adopted in fields other than the medical field, it will be hard to stop it. Survival of the fittest will emerge in a way that we have never seen it before. Relationships will change and society’s whole dynamic will become different. I think that genomic sequencing should stay in the medical field; it has no reason to be used in other areas. Saving lives is one thing, but previously “secret” and personal information becoming public is a completely different story. If genomic sequencing was used in other fields, legislation would definitely be needed in order for genetic sequencing to fulfill its positive potential. Despite the possible negative effects, it is an exciting time to live due to such an incredible scientific advancement, and I am curious to see how the next few decades will incorporate genetic sequencing.
Clara,
DeleteI really appreciate your response as you expanded on my statement "Genomic sequencing is going to have to come with a great deal of responsibility." It is very easy to use it as a means of power and control. Genomic discrimination and the idea of survival of the fittest are very real things to consider and think about. I guess the question here is how do we ensure that genomic sequencing stays in the medical field?
I don't think there's any debate that genome sequencing is a valuable diagnostic tool. In the latter two cases Resnick discussed it proved essential for successful treatment of those particular patients. I believe that if the technology is there and if it could save a life then by all means use it. However, there is an element of personal choice that must considered. Take, for example, the case of the woman who died from cancer. Her children may or may not choose to be genetically tested for the deletion mutation their mother had that indicated her high risk for developing cancer. Beyond the medical applications, it wasn't hard for Resnick to convince me of the necessity to use genomics as a tool to improve GMOs. His argument was logical - if the human population is going to continuously increase as it has been, so too must our food supply. It was when Resnick used the analogy of the evolution of the typewriter to the wireless internet to compare the genomic revolution that I became skeptical. Not all technological advancements have to evolve to the point where they have a commercial (and therefore profitable) application. I think genomic sequencing is one of these. Frankly, it sounds like overkill to me to utilize genoming technology as a dating service or a means to select the best presidential candidate. Such a use fails to consider how environmental factors interact with one's genome to produce the whole person they are. It places all the importance on nature and none of nuture, when research has made it pretty clear that we're all a balanced product of both. While the medical implications of genomic sequencing are astounding and have the ability to completely change the way we treat patients, I personally believe other social uses of sequencing offer limited benefit to society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comment that social uses of genetic sequencing offer little benefit to society, however, I do not think that is enough to stop it from becoming commercially accessible. Even today, people love to take personality tests and learn more about themselves, even if it may not be accurate. Genomic sequencing offers a more scientifically based test and if it becomes cheap enough, there is definitely a possibility that it will be commercially successful. Anyone who takes advantage of this will probably not be considering any possible negative effects it may have on society. Though I agree with your point that genomic sequencing places no importance on the nurture or environmental side of genetics, the general population probably would not consider this when opting to get their genomic sequence. Consider the Myers-Briggs personality test, this is in no way one-hundred percent accurate, yet, this does not stop many people from abstaining from taking this test, sometimes even paying money for more information. I believe the same principle would apply to genomic sequencing.
DeleteMy initial reaction to this video was a feeling of amazement because I didn’t know that the sequencing of the human genome would bring about all these changes. This could mean so much for the fields of science and medicine. I honestly wasn’t aware of what the sequencing of the human genome would mean for us before this class and this video. I was intrigued by the positive effects that the sequencing produced and wondered why haven’t we all been sequenced? (Especially with the declining costs and all) But by the end of the video I would have to say that I want to rescind my previous reaction. Although genomic sequencing can be beneficial for numerous people in finding early prevention techniques and preventative care, it is hard to say what else could happen with all this information. Too much of a good thing isn’t always a good thing. Resnick says that soon the information will be so easily accessible that we could all just over use the information in ways that it really isn’t beneficial to apply. When this “tipping point” occurs I’m worried about what society will do with all this information. A lot of ethical problems could be produced and the information can be used in ways that wouldn’t really benefit anyone. The presidential race example he used got me thinking about how genome sequencing could be used in discriminatory ways – not just in elections but even by employers and insurance companies. This would put lots of people at a unfair disadvantage. Perhaps some things are better left unknown – or in this case maybe it is best used only in healthcare and preventative ways. But I think it would be difficult to restrict the information for only positive purposes after the tipping point has been reached.
ReplyDeleteHi Ann,
DeleteI agree with your concerns about the 'tipping point'. I think that genetic testing can help an innumerable amount of people and can increase the quality of life for those who are already sick, but that it does come with risks. The potential for this personal health information to become public and affect people's decisions about others has many ethical aspects, and would put a lot of people at a disadvantage when there is nothing they can do about it.
When Resnick said that the world has changed and none of us know about it, I was taken aback. I would think that the audience and me as a college student would know enough about those changes. However, after listening to his example of the woman with cancer and how finding the gene responsible for it could change the family’s life, it made me rethink what we know of today’s world and how our future with gene sequencing could change. It does seem like it will still take many decades for gene sequencing to be available to everyone at an affordable price.
ReplyDeleteOn the bright side genetic sequencing will allow families to make informed decisions. For example, two people that would like to form a family can see if they are compatible. The negative side is if it comes out that they are not but on the off chance they could have still had a healthy child. Another negative aspect is that the population would grow since people would be living longer which would mean we need more food supplies which are also genetically engineered. It would increase psychological stress depending on how an individual results come back. I know I wouldn’t want to live my life thinking that I will get a disease one day. I do know that some would take that opportunity to live their lives to the fullest but that’s already something we should be doing.
I think Claribel makes a good point about how a person could be put under a lot of stress worrying about their results. Of course it would be beneficial for an individual to know if they are predisposed to a certain disease so that they can lower their risk as much as possible. However, it could also be detrimental if the individual is overly cautious and spends lots of time worrying because of their results.
DeleteWhen I first saw the video I was both excited and impressed by the amount of information that can be determined through genetic testing.
ReplyDeleteThere will obviously be both incredibly positive and negative effects. The positive effects would be that nearly everyone would be able to determine their predisposition to genetic diseases. Cures for diseases that were previously untreatable are now in the realm of possibility and diseases such as cancer could be treated proactively. However, just because genetic testing is available to everyone doesn’t mean that treatment to diseases is affordable; in fact, treatment costs could go up because of the higher demand. Additionally, there could be social consequences, especially if the information on genetic testing is not protected. There could be a new level of stratification and discrimination based on one’s genetic disposition. As the video mentioned, the information from genetic testing could become part of everyday life, such as politics. This could potentially shift the focus of many jobs from the individual and their character traits to their genetic predisposition, which is not necessarily a good thing.
Hi Karly! I think your point about the price is very true. In theory it should be inexpensive, but so should be many other things we have. I think that is important to think about since such progress should not be kept to just the wealthy.
DeleteInitially, I was intrigued by the role genomic sequence may play in the social aspects of our society. I have often come across the many benefits in medicine and disease prevention that genomic sequencing provides; however, I had never considered the impact it may have on social relationships if it becomes as accessible as Resnick predicts.
ReplyDeleteThis, “tipping point” that Resnick discusses introduces a future that is both incredible and frightening. With genomic sequencing being so cheap and accessible, we will have the ability to predict and prevent serious diseases and allow individuals to live longer, healthier lives. Genomic sequencing will have a huge impact on medicine, and mankind will be healthier and will live longer. However, this advancement does not come without negative implications. As Resnick discussed, in order for the increasing population to survive, the amount of food that is produced must increase at the same rate. Though this is possible with genetically modified foods, Resnick implied that the backlash and lack of support of GMOs have needs to end in order for the population to be supported.
Furthermore, the social effect on society that genome sequence may have is concerning. It is strange to imagine a future where genomic sequencing is as accessible as Resnick predicts, for example as an application on an iPhone. It is definitely a possibility that society will use this new information to justify feelings of superiority, a new sort of racism. However, I believe that this possible outcome is no reason to stop advancement in a science that would benefit mankind so drastically. It is natural to fear new technology, however, in order to allow these advancements, it is important to trust that humanity will learn and adapt to genomic sequencing, without too many detrimental consequences.
Priya, I really like your point about society developing feelings of superiority and the potential discrimination that could arise from having access to this genetic information. I think it is also really important that you acknowledged that these potential negative effects should not, however, prevent these advancements from continuing, and that people will just have to learn how to adapt accordingly so society can benefit from this new science and research!
DeleteMy initial response to Richard Resnick’s Ted Talk was extreme optimism about the potential of the human genome project. Having the entire human genome sequenced has created amazing opportunities for preventative medicine and early diagnosis. The ability to personalize medicine on a genetic level is helping to find cures for many with rather disorders but the social implications of wide-spread sequencing are not as black and white. Privacy concerns are obviously at the top of the list of negative repercussions of the proposed “tipping point”. Resnick at one point suggested that our genomes could be stored on our mobile devices and could be used as a type of social network. This could lead to issues with profiling by government agencies and social stigma surrounding certain genetic disorders. On the research side of things such widespread testing would be of great benefit. Researchers would have a greater understanding of how certain diseases affect certain populations would be able to create therapies tailored for the best outcomes within those populations. I think the genomic revolution promised a lot in its early stage but has thus far come up slightly short. This TED talk made me more hopeful about the possibilities afforded by the human genome project in the years to come. Cheaper, quicker, and more accurate testing may be the solution to the problems that initially plagued the role of the genome in medicine.
ReplyDeleteYour comment about government profiling really sparked my interest. It is frightening that organizations, governmental or otherwise, could know almost anything they wanted about a person if they had access to our genetic makeup too. Already, security cameras track our movements, Google tracks our search histories, our fingerprints are stored in databases, Facebook tracks our likes and preferences (not to mention whatever information we put up about our lives), etc. While some of this data is freely surrendered (ie Facebook), much of it is not----and there's so much personal abuse that could come from unbridled access to it.
DeleteI agree with what Jarret is saying completely especially with government profiling. I feel as if genetic testing were to become a common thing, insurance agencies and even employers would go too far and use genetic testing as a way to hire the people who's genome fit the best with their company or even have the possibility to deny people extended coverage because their genome may code for something as little as getting the common cold. There is great potential with genetic testing and I find that personalized treatments for patients are a good way to tailor to ones needs rather then just treating the patient like everyone else who may display the same symptoms of an illness.
DeleteMy initial response to the video is that Richard Resnick clearly knows what he’s talking about. He presented the material in an easily accessible way, as is the nature of TED Talks. However, I would have liked him to elaborate on the particular developments in Beijing and around the world. He covered a wide range of topics and gave a nice overview of the current situation in genomics, but there wasn’t much of a focal point to the video other than “things are advancing” rhetoric. I also disagreed with one of his statements, though I agree with the point he was trying to make. He discusses how the genetically-modified foods necessary to feed our growing world population uses the same technology as genomic diagnostics, and that as our world population increases, so too must we increase food production. While this is absolutely true, he also goes on to comment, “Unless there’s anybody in the audience who would like to volunteer to stop eating?” I find this a needlessly simple way of presenting the problem, because that people need to eat is not the problem-- it is that we demand food, like meat and dairy products, that take up so many agricultural resources. Livestock requires massive amounts of grain to feed, and this demand raises the price of edible grains and makes them financially inaccessible to people in poorer countries. Further, our dependence on bio-fuels also eats up food resources that could be used to feed people who are hungry. If we simply change how and where these corn, wheat, and soybean crops are being distributed, GM or not, it wouldn’t be such a struggle to feed our population.
ReplyDeleteResearch-wise, there will be amazing opportunity for early diagnostics and preventative measures, but a negative of this research is that genomic discrimination may be a problem. Until only very recently, insurance companies were able to deny someone coverage because of “pre-existing conditions”. I definitely see companies citing “possibly-existing conditions” on the basis of genetic tests unless legislation is enacted to curb such action. Another negative to this research may be, in the extreme, giving parents the ability to “pick and choose” aspects about their child, down to their appearance and personality, which may lead to certain ethical questions about the beauty of chance and individuality. Society will benefit from decreasing the burden of many diseases on individuals and their families, but for those that cannot afford to get sequenced this may reinforce socioeconomic inequality.
I would like to know more about the technology aspect of the “revolution”—the specificities of the sequencing machines and the process someone in the genomics lab would be doing with the samples they are testing. A balanced interplay between the science and the applicable effects/possibilities of the advancements would be ideal.
So how do you suggest society go about agreeing on a solution to the food problem? Do we just entirely stop meat production and force everyone in the world to survive off the diet of a vegetarian or a vegan? That would never pass in the world no matter how abstract of an idea variation someone can come up with. If that were the case nutritionists and dietitians worldwide would have to come up with new food pyramid because oh look, we just decided to stop producing all the meat, one of the main protein sources in the world (and not to mention sacred in India) and gave up on dairy because it too was too costly. I think it's a start of an idea, but way to aggressive to just implement in a short period of time.
DeleteI did not suggest to entirely stop meat production and force everyone to go vegan, Dylan. That is an extreme that I think neither logical nor possible (And believe me, I love myself a good burger). I merely stated a fact: that meat and dairy products require a vast input of resources with respect to the output. The only "solution" I offered was a change in the current model of resource distribution that skewed toward greater efficiency. That could mean reducing consumption of bio-fuels in favor of natural gas or nuclear energy. It could mean not supplying food in excess to one place where there is little in another, and not being wasteful of the resources we do have. These are minute changes that will occur over time, and certainly not in the short term. You may argue that the effects of these changes may be too little to help, but even though it won't solve everything, it definitely won't hurt.
DeleteMy initial reaction to the video was that this project has the potential for our health care system to make great strides in preventative medicine. These advances in preventative medicine would help our health care system save money because serious diseases could be caught earlier and require less serious and expensive care. This would also help patients because they will be less likely to have to go through a significant amount of serious treatment. From this standpoint, it will be great when our society hits the “tipping point” of whole-genome sequencing so that everyone will have the ability to be sequenced and use this source of preventative medicine. However, the ability to have everyone sequenced could easily be abused. Resnick’s joke of people using gene sequencing to see if their partner carries the “cheating gene” is an extreme example but illustrates how someone could use gene sequencing to make decisions in just about any setting in their lives. And while it is great to make informed decisions, there is such a thing as being too informed. Gene sequencing could start to be relied upon too heavily and become so widespread that it is used to make decisions in a number of different scenarios where it should not be used.
ReplyDeleteI agree, there are a lot of diseases that have no cure, so the invention of genetic engineering in medicine can result as a cure to several deadly diseases. I also agree that Resnick's joke illustrates the point that genetic engineering may get out of hand well. In today's society where people are especially concerned with looks I think we will start to see things like cloning and genetic altering of fetuses becoming more common. Genetic engineering may work wonders but at the end of the day it is a process of manipulating the natural. We are altering something that is not naturally created by man. So as a society I think we need to ask ourselves, is playing with nature really safe?
DeleteI agree with your reaction to the video, and I definitely believe that this genomic revolution would be advantageous to the field of healthcare, as this testing would be able to increase the quality and efficiency of preventative medicine. However, as much as I believe that genome sequencing would allow for more people to screen early for potentially preventable diseases, I do also believe that because it would be more easily accessible to the general public, the system would be abused. While genomic sequencing could be beneficial, it also would reveal very personal information, and having the ability to be so informed could be harmful for the average person.
DeleteMy initial reaction to Mr. Resnicks talk was not only insightful but it was also a powerful lecture on the possibilities that could be brought about using genetic testing. These genetic tests have the potential to be useful in early detection of diseases and also biotech and pharmacological aspect of creating new and useful drugs to combat variations of unseen disease. I was so unaware of the possibilities that genomic testing could bring to its users. All this new and exciting information is great to a certain extent but as Resnick said, there is a "tipping point. " There are good and bad complications that will arise from this point. Clearly noted are the advantages of a more accurate diagnoses process of specific disease, which if detected early with regular check ups, could help lengthen a persons life by as little as 5 years. Genetic testing can also lead to an abuse of this process in the case of political campaigns. If a candidate were to use genomic testing, they would have the power to sway public opinion on the opposing candidate. Things like an iPhone app that tests your genomic sequences, while I find it completely absurd, are in the race to make it more accessible to the user. The rise of genetic revolution is making its way to improving the whole well being of society if taken advantage and used by the right people but as of now, I find it to be in the early stages of development. However, I am excited to see how far we can take medical advances to the next level and look beyond detection of disease and more toward prevention of a disease from every coming into contact with human population.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that privacy laws, perhaps added to HIPAA, would stop any bad outcomes of genome sequencing? If the information from genome sequencing was made private and only visible by the person whose genome was sequenced and perhaps his or her doctors, the information would not be seen by the public, thereby not affecting political careers.
DeleteReuben, your comment was very well articulated. I agree with you that it was very insightful to hear the possibilities that could come from genetic testing. I also agree that the iPhone app would be completely absurd but it would help with the accessibility for those not able to make it to a clinic for whatever reasons. Political power is a huge benefit because as we know, if politicians can find something to use against their competitor they will, whether made private or not. There would definitely have to be some sort of boundary not allowing sequencing testing to be used in certain settings.
DeleteElla, I am pointing out that during a political campaign, if you are aware or not, both candidates will use techniques to undermine their opponent to get the voters to see the opposing candidate in a poor light. I agree with you to say that if it were made private, there would be no problem but that is not the case due to the exposing that goes on within every and all political campaign. These techniques include and are not limited to bumper stickers, ad attacks, PIG, lawn signs, canvassing etc. Direct effects of political campaign advertising include informing voters about candidates' positions and affecting the "preferences and participatory ethos of the electorate". Studies show that voting results are affected by voters' characteristics and the type of ad to which they are exposed. Negative ad attacks have been studied for their effects on memory and ability to shape attitude towards candidates. Both variables are measured to determine the effectiveness of negative ads, which tend to be well remembered. So to come back to my point on political complaints, if a candidate were to make a lawn sign that candidate x has a genomic sequence for early death, voters will see that, question their decision to vote for that candidate, and evaluate the candidates longevity to be fit for office . So to refute your argument, this would affect politcal careers.
DeleteHey Reuben,
DeleteI completely agree with you that I'm very excited on how these scientists can take this genomic revolution to help medical advances and save many lives. But with that being said, there needs to be a lot of responsibility. Information that can be potentially stolen and misused could cause many problems not only in the medical field, but also in people's personal lives. Regarding your stance on using it for politics, theres both pros and cons. I agree that its bad to use this as a technique to undermine their opponent. But I think they can use it to boost their campaign instead of attacking the opponent. Theres sides to both sides, which I myself haven't really made up my mind. But as you said, its crazy to think it can be available through apps and how accessible one's private information can be for others. I feel that the government needs to first make it secure and protected before doing anything with it for social or medical reasons.
I was initially surprised by how quickly genomic sequencing is occurring, as well as how important of a role in can play in determining different factors of our health. I think that once the “tipping point” is reached, there will ultimately be negative consequences of having one’s genome sequenced. With the process being cheap and no regulation of who can be sequenced and in what circumstances, there is the potential for individual to use the sequencing for reasons that will not benefit society. For example, Resnick mentions testing of the “so-called cheating gene”. If genomic sequencing were commonly used in society to determine if an individual has this gene, then I think that the genome sequencing is not being used for it’s intended purpose.
ReplyDeleteI also think that overuse of genomic sequencing for genetic testing in order to determine if an individual has a certain disease could potentially lead to overdiagnoses of conditions that are not necessarily life threatening. In relationship to this, overdiagnosis of conditions or diseases could lead to increased use of medication for treatment and increased use could lead to increased immunity of certain antibiotics/medications.
In regards to research, if there are too many genomes being sequenced for reasons other than health conditions, it could be difficult for researchers to effectively compile data to provide medical professional with information about what gene mutations could lead to medical conditions or diseases. While there are some negative consequences, I do think for researchers there are many positive aspects, the main one being that there is increased accessibility for an individual to be sequenced if a diagnosis is needed.
While I think it would be helpful for all individual’s to be aware of any health/genetic related problems they may be predisposed to, I think it is important to have some regulation over the accessibility to sequencing in order to make sure that it’s used for it’s intended purpose.
Jen, I like that you brought up a view that I originally didn't see when I was watching the video. I originally thought that genomic sequencing would potentially lead to billions of dollars saved in healthcare given that doctors could correctly match up patient's genetic material with the proper medication. However, you brought up a good point that given the complexity of DNA and genetic material, doctor's could mess up and miss or over diagnose conditions such as cancer, leukemia, etc. which could also lead to lots of money being wasted. Another idea you brought up that I didn't previously think about was the regulation of genetic sequencing. While it does seem there are positives to getting everyone's genome sequenced, you mentioned how people could misuse this information for purposes such as racism, genetic superiority, or as Resnick put it, a President proving he is genetically superior to his opponent. I agree that some sort of regulation should be put in place in order to make sure genetic sequencing is used for the advancement of medical science and for treating conditions, and not for socially "frowned upon" practices.
DeleteI have attended a few lectures about the Human Genome Project, and I find it extremely fascinating. Hearing Resnick talk about the specific cases and lives that have become exponentially enhanced through genome sequencing is astounding. It seems as though science is advancing at such a great speed, and although we are still comparably at the desktop computer stage, Resnick showed how soon we will be at the iPad level. By showing all the good that genome sequencing can do for society, this Ted talk is important so people understand how they can take their health into their own hands. The talk was entertaining with a few tasteful moments of humor, and it evoked audience reaction.
ReplyDeleteThere are many positive effects on human health stemming from genome sequencing. Diseases will be less likely to be misdiagnosed. Prevention of diseases will increase dramatically when known precursors are found. People will be more cognizant of their health statuses. While there are many personal health benefits to genome sequencing, there are socially negative effects as well. Hiring managers may ask for genomic data before hiring someone to see if he or she will be a healthy employee. Before whole-genome sequencing becomes readily available, laws must be enacted, not allowing genomic discrimination.
While I think that genome sequencing is essential for human evolution and for our future, we must be careful with how we use it to ensure privacy and treatment when genomic errors are found.
I like your idea about enacting laws against discrimination based on genome features before whole-genome sequencing becomes readily available. I think most people agree that reactionary laws are ineffective in comparison to laws that anticipate and forbid certain actions. I'm wondering though what types of laws would work in preventing discrimination towards a person's genetic information. Perhaps employers could be prohibited from viewing a potential employee's information unless he or she voluntarily submitted it. Yet such a law would make it seem as though those who refuse have something to hide, and healthy people who do submit their spotless genomes to employers would likely get an advantage in their prospects of getting hired. It seems to me that the only suitable law for employee privacy and protection would be to prohibit the exchange of genetic information between employers and their potential employees. Of course, such a law could be viewed as an infringement on peoples' freedom to share whatever information they desire. I wonder if such a prohibitive law is justified in its attempt to keep people free from being slaves, as it were, to their genetic information, unable to find a job because the details of their genomic information repulse potential employers.
DeleteI think you pointed out a very important positive from genome sequencing: diseases being less likely misdiagnosed. It would be such an advantage to have the proof and the research that supports the correlation of mutation in the genome to the disease present in the individual. More genome sequencing could bring more answers about specific gene mutations and diseases and impact the health of many for the better. As of they point about employers looking into the genetic screening I hadn't thought of it as an excuse to not hire someone. But thinking it though it makes financial sense to to hire someone who will be sick all the time, so i think it is great that you bring up the point about enacting laws to prevent such discrimination.
DeleteI agree that there are many positive effects of genome sequencing. You also made a great point about people being discriminated against based on their DNA. There should definitely be laws enacted to ensure that everyone's health information is private and that it can only be revealed for certain purposes.
DeleteElla, what about other prevention programs that are more cost effective than this genome revolution? For example, more education on proper diet and exercise could help the obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease prevalence we have in the US. Those are actual problems that we have right now as far as diseases that can be prevented or least the burden of symptoms and treatment for patients can be delayed. Not only do future physicians and scientists and other people who have access to genome information have to be cautious about the ethics of genome revolution, people can't forget about making other changes like implementing prevention programs in the current health care system.
DeleteWatching this video excited me about the future of medicine and its potentially rapid advancements in the face of new knowledge of the human genome and the causes of disease. I enjoyed listening to Mr. Resnick's medical anecdotes of real-life patients whose lives were improved through medical actions taken only because of knowledge about their condition obtained through genomic sequencing. I was also impressed by Mr. Resnick's confidence in the genome project to advance so rapidly. His quote about our cancer treatments today looking "like bloodletting" in just ten years from now made me wonder exactly what sort of treatments he has in mind, though I believe him in his estimation of treatment improvements.
ReplyDeleteWhen Resnick speaks of our approaching a tipping point where genome sequencing will become cheap enough for everyone in the United States to get sequenced, my reaction is one of confusion of how to respond. I have never really thought about getting my genome sequenced. I've always been pretty healthy and have been wary of scientists manipulating genes and consequently the aspects of our persons that make us unique individuals. That said, I suppose that like it or not I will know my genome sequence in the near future because of widespread testing. Assuming many people are as ignorant as I am about genome testing, I believe that genomic education, which Resnick encourages in his talk, ought to be more widespread in the immediate future. While it would certainly be nice to know ahead of time who is likely to get a disease so that treatments can be enacted early and save lives, we have to know how to handle the myriad of information contained within our genome. Some foreseeable negative effects of genomic testing would be for employers or insurance companies to turn down an individual's attempt at employment or coverage because of his or her likelihood of developing a disease. I am also repulsed by the idea of a society where even our relationships are perfectly calculated so that we only affiliate ourselves with those who are most compatible to us based on genetic information. I would much rather leave such nuances of our individuality left unseen to the public. Of course the handling of information is more of a social problem which cannot be determined simply through genetic information alone, but rather how we respond to the release of this information. Overall, I am excited by the idea of rapid advancements in medical technologies and awareness of human health, but I am equally interested and a bit concerned about how this information will be handled by a public that may not be ready to know all of what our DNA sequences contain.
Your idea about genomic testing interfering with potential job opportunities is not one I immediately thought of, but was genuinely interested in upon reading your post. Resnick talks about what will happen when genetic information about presidential candidates is available to the public. Now this is the most extreme sense of an "occupation," but makes you wonder if an increased risk for cancer or a certain disease could be the defining difference between someone being elected our president of the United States or not. On a more general level, public knowledge of genetic information is going to make getting a job more difficult and "choosey" on the part of the employer one might say. What will matter more... proven proficient skills and test scores or genes that suggest higher levels of intelligence or ability to succeed?
DeleteI am also very intrigued by this idea that affordable genome sequencing (in addition to saving many lives) could lead to negative effects and unfair treatment of people by employers, future loved ones, etc.
DeleteI am a huge believer in science, but I can't help but feel sick to my stomach thinking that this is not something humans were supposed to do. Knowing so much about one's future seems unnatural. To me it seems like it should be up to a particular person if he or she wants their genome sequenced. I fear that it will get to the point where the person has his or her information revealed without his or her consent.
This video was very surprising to me, as Richard Resnick proposes it would be. The simple fact that the human genome is now realistic to think of as soon acting as a universal diagnostic tool in medicine is amazing. This could be the simple answer to such complex diseases and unknown medical conditions that abruptly become fatal due to a lack of information. The most impressive part of this genomic revolution is the cost. Resnick states that the price to sequence a base has fallen one hundred million times, with a decline in price expected to continue. Though I am genuinely freaked out that with genome sequencing we can learn who is most likely to be a cheater and whom we are romantically compatible with! This information seems wrong to associate with genes and makes me wonder what kind of world we will live in once genes with these personal characteristics become public knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThe ability to make something so beneficial to one’s medical status so easily affordable is revolutionary in itself. The medical field is known to be one of great cost, with expensive drugs, absurdly excessive ambulance and hospital bills, and financially crippling long term treatment plans. The “tipping point” that will create a low cost of genomic sequencing will open doors for people of low socioeconomic status to inquire about their health.
Though the problem with making something as complicated as an entire genome sequence easily accessible to the majority of the public falls more with the educational level of the public. I would have to guess that a substantial amount of the general public has little knowledge as to what genomics really is and what this field of science entails. Personally, I have never considered having genetic testing done. I am a division one athlete, in perfect health, competing at the highest level of my sport on a daily basis while also pursuing Med School. It has never once crossed my mind that there could be something “wrong” with me. I am sure that there are plenty of people who have the same mindset as me. I believe that this mindset will be the greatest barrier for genetic testing to overcome. A person who believes him or herself to be healthy will not voluntarily pursue a genetic test despite the low cost. There will also be a large amount of people who do not want to know what could potentially be wrong with them. The ability to sequence ones’ genes in order to determine potential disorders is down right frightening to think about. Gender testing on unborn children is available, yet there are still people who would rather not know until they discover for themselves. I believe that this mindset will also carry over to genome sequencing. A person’s opinion isn’t the only barrier genetic testing will face or create. What happens when someone has their genome sequenced and finds out that they need expensive drugs and extensive treatment in order to be deemed “normal” or “healthy” again? Though the genetic testing itself may be cheap the results from this test could be mentally and financially crippling.
Genome sequencing carries with it many positive and negative effects. Yes, genome sequencing changes medicine, allows doctors to make easy, and correct diagnoses, and will most definitely increase the life span of the human population. The problems genome sequencing carries along with it could potentially slow these many benefits down though. I am very excited to see where this new technology takes us in the years to come.
Although I completely agree with the sentiment that you put forward about genomic testing not being the norm, the genomic revolution has the potential to change the minds of the general public. My idea is that moving forward into such a revolution there should be more education and awareness about the positive health implications of getting your genome sequenced. With this education precursor there will be more understanding when this technology becomes more affordable. I agree with the notion that some people may not want to know if they will in fact have the gene for early on set Alzheimer disease or other major life changing diseases but moving forward with education could lead to discovery of a cure. Certainly finding out about some of these health concerns ahead of time can lead to medication that helps slow the complications and symptoms. The genomic revolution can rapidly change the effectiveness of the medical world as we know it.
DeleteResnick’s Ted talk both excites and terrifies me. As I heard him discuss the incredible accomplishment of sequencing the human genome and how this could enhance and personalize medical care, I initially felt incredibly proud and hopeful. I was amazed by his story about the young boy with the intestinal issues and how revealing his genes helped cure him. But, as he continued to talk about the other aspects of life the human genome could affect, I began to feel extremely torn between what I think is most important. Of course I am in support of public health and using science to allow animals to live longer and healthier lives, but as Resnick mentioned, this increase in population is and will lead to an even greater food crisis. He says we will need more genetically modified food in order to keep up with the positive effects of using genomes to enhance medical care and he is right. I couldn’t help but think of the twisted food industry revealed by the film Food Inc. where chickens grew to full size in just a couple of weeks due to genetic engineering in order to feed the growing world. It seems like instead of being rewarded for their great research on human genes, scientists involved in the genome project could instead be punished by contributing to an over crowded and underfed world.
ReplyDeleteI guess I just see many unnatural and negative effects coming from something that is studied and used to enhance human lives, leaving me feeling very torn and like there is doom approaching.
I see the “tipping point” Resnick mentions as both a good and bad thing. If getting your genes sequenced is affordable for everyone, then there will be no discrimination between the rich and poor. Someone who can afford gene sequencing would have a greater chance at health so it would be unfair if only a portion of the world could do this. But, I fear that affordable gene sequencing will create discrimination not between the rich and poor, but between the genetically favorable and the genetically unfavorable. This could lead to discrimination by employers, insurance companies, and even families.
I never thought of the implications of genetic testing and equality until I read your comment. I think it is an important point to bring up when talking about the health benefits of genetic testing especially when thinking about it from a preventative medicine standpoint. It would be almost unfair for people who have money and are already at some sort of health advantage to have even more of an advantage with genetic testing. It makes me think about the story in the talk about the man who got his twins sequenced and drastically changed their health outcome; this wouldn't have happened if he weren't in an advantageous position with his job and being able to afford the test. I think opportunities like this should be available to everyone and am hopeful with the trend the cost is currently in. Hopefully this trend will continue and opportunities like this will be available to all.
DeleteI was initially surprised to see how greatly genome sequencing has progressed in this TED Talk. I am very hopeful in regards to seeing how using the human genome will positively impact health care. We are currently capable of strengthening and advancing preventative care by using the information given by individuals' genomes. It brought me joy to hear specific medical cases in which genetic information helped improve the help of others. However, I never considered the social effect that sequencing could have if it were to be used more loosely and widespread as Resnick suggested. I could imagine the positive effects for the progression of science and medicine (individual treatment based on genome), but I can't help but think of the possibility of negative outcomes as well. What if in the future, individuals' genomes could get into the hands of insurance companies and the price of coverage for those with particular genes would increase or even lead to denial of coverage overall. What if candidates running for political office truly did present their genetic information and challenge others to do the same? Would these acts generate a new type of discrimination? I believe that genetic education should become more widespread in the near future as genetic testing will become more prominent in health care. I never thought about getting my genome sequenced, but now I do understand that there are advantages to having it done.
ReplyDeleteThe thought of how much more effective prevention of diseases can become in the future makes me excited as well! I didn't think of the progression of science and medicine as "social effect," but I do see how it can be advanced through more individualized treatments. I agree that having widely-accessible genome information could be dangerous to individuals' security. I did not think of the effect it would have on health care coverage, but understand now that it could lead to denial of services, even without the patient's knowledge of his or her own health risks.
DeleteI was initially shocked with how much money was spent sequencing the genome. But when he put it into perspective it didn’t seem like a huge price to pay for $1 per base. While the project as a whole was very expensive to map out, I don’t think that we should put a price on seeing who we are at our most basic level. I think that to figure this out is important to understanding how we work beyond what we know now. There were many positives brought forth from the tipping point such as being able to detect and defer diseases as well as being able to universally diagnose diseases. For research, it seems as though each person would be an open book waiting to be read for what it is the researcher is looking for. Especially since in this talk, Richard talks about learning about even behavior with genes.
ReplyDeleteHowever good the medical implications for genetic testing may be, the social implications worry me. I imagine a MATCH.COM being made with genome matches and obsessive wives testing for this “cheating gene”. I imagine desperate lovers deciding not to be together because their genes have deemed them “incompatible”. I think genetic testing will take a lot out of deciding who we are and what we are capable of doing. I think the scariest social implication would leave us in a world like Aldous Huxley described in his novel Brave New World with predestination of infants based on pre-birth genetic testing (and you know we’re not that far with the artificial uterus underway). I think that in the long run, this will have a negative effect of how humanity functions and will change what we think a “person” is; from an individual with choices to a predetermined map of A’s, T’s, C’s and G’s.
What are the limits of genetic testing? The accuracy of genes and malformations? If you have the cheating gene, how likely is it that you will be a cheater? If you have a cancer malformation, how likely is it that you will get cancer (the talk said 90%). Will we allow our lives to be dictated as a sum of probabilities? I think these questions will allow us to determine how deeply we let genetic testing become entwined with our society.
I hadn't really considered the fact that entrepreneurs would absolutely capitalize on the online dating market with genome compatibility tests. Or perhaps there would be an underground sex operation where you can pay to have sex with someone who has superior genes. Just a thought. However, as far as genes take us, to my knowledge, being genetically compatible doesn't mean that you are necessarily going to fall in love with someone. If our society comes to a point where we are more concerned with how our offspring will turn out than our basic human emotions then I would not want to live in that world. It dehumanizes us and takes away the very thing that makes us human.
DeleteInitially I was amazed with the rapid growth and medical benefit that genome sequencing could provide. I had no idea that it had grown so much since the human genome project ended in 2003. The stories Resnick told really made an impression on me, and what an important diagnostic tool genome sequencing is. When we reach the tipping point I think that society will be greatly impacted. Having information like that readily available is a new way to take our health into our own hands and become more knowledgeable about our genetics as a society. This will be crucial for people with disease and for family members worried about their risks. A story Resnick told comes to mind, specifically explanation of the mutation in TP53 that can indicate a 90% likelihood that an individual will get cancer. This can be instrumental in early treatment. But I think the social drawback is that individuals may think this is the only factor that matters when it comes to their well-being. It is important not to forget that where and how they grow up makes an impact on the genome. As for the research, I think having more genomes to sequence due to public access will be a better pool of information to compare mutations and patterns. But I think that is people are getting tested because they think they have to, not because they are ill and looking for answers or being screened will waste the resources of the researches looking for links to the genetic patters and diseases in the individuals with the mutations of the genome. Overall I think genome sequencing is a crucial piece of the puzzle to understanding the diseases of individuals. I believe that individuals should have access if they want to do it not that they should be forced to do it.
ReplyDeleteRichard Resnick’s TED Talk was filled with information that I have never heard before. I knew that we were progressing in technology and knowledge, but did not have any idea how rapidly it was growing. I was especially blown away when he discussed how cheap and accessible genetic information is. However, I did feel as though he was being unreasonable -- or perhaps, too imaginative -- with his ideas for the future.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are positive changes that could come with these like easy-to-access medical information and universal testing for better disease prevention, there are many reasons these will probably not come to fruition. Resnick mentioned that people’s genomes could be used for things like finding relationship compatibility, receiving personalized massages, looking at DNA sequencing on cell phones, and finding distant relatives. While it may be possible, society is unlikely to willingly give out information for things like phone applications and dating. Even today, people feel that their privacy is being violated by social media websites, GPS tracking, and the prospects of having mandatory microchip implants. I feel that they would feel even more violated if they were to have all of their genetic information available.
At first, I was in awe at the growth of the sequencing of the human genome. The story of how the Beery twins were basically reversed from living with a disability to normal lives sent chills down my back. It showed not only how misinformation could essentially ruin lives, but also how the human genome project provided doctors with information that would otherwise be inaccessible. The sequencing of the human genome is clearly a tool that can and should be used to provide positivity to all lives. It is clear that when the human genome project reaches the tipping point, it will allow society to have the necessary information to make the proper health choices and decisions. However, this also means that there will be a higher demand for treatment and prevention while health supplies are limited. Will this mean that cost will be higher? Does this mean that the privileged will now have an advantage achieving their medical needs. In addition, at the end of his speech Resnick states that the sequencing does not determine the nature of our society, "at least not yet". I was somewhat offended by this comment, as if my genetic sequence will one day be the only factor considered in determining who I am. I think that as long as the sequencing of the human genome is used as an aid to understanding humans and disease, it's potential will be limitless. However, it should never be the sole factor considered when talking about the essence of humanity- nature and nurture, never nature versus nurture.
ReplyDeleteYour post is very interesting! Although it may rise health care costs, I feel as though genetic sequencing has the ability to significantly drive down the overall costs that are spent on health needs each year. If individuals are able to determine that they have a greater chance of becoming diagnosed with a certain disease, then they will seek out the necessary screening and prevention strategies that will be able to catch the disease in its earliest stages. If a disease is caught early enough, simple treatments will be able to take care of the problem instead of enduring long and very expensive treatments to cease more mature disease states. Typically prevention strategies are more cost effective than treatment plans, so having this knowledge from genetic sequencing should hopefully drive down some health care costs.
DeleteAfter listening to Resnick discuss the potential for researching more about the human genome, I was intrigued. I have never really looked into the evolution of whole-genome sequencing so this was very interesting to think about. The evolution of genetic engineering gets the consideration of being one of the biggest breakthroughs in the history of mankind. However, after considering the pros and the cons, I am still skeptical of the whole thing. Theoretically, I think this could be great. On the one hand, this could result in things like early detections, cures to several deadly diseases and unique genetically tailored medicine for patients with cancer. However, we need to consider the negative ways that this information can be used, such as people having other people’s DNA sequenced without their consent, or insurance companies using genetic information to discriminate against some people. Society could also begin to abuse this revolutionary medicinal advance by altering physical features of a baby inside a fetus or using it for other procedures that are not medically necessary. I think this is what Resnick is talking about when he discusses a “tipping point”. So with all this in consideration, I think it is mainly an issue of how people will/ should use this information and if it is morally and ethically just. Ultimately the question we need to ask ourselves as a society is whether man has the right to manipulate or alter the genes of natural things.
ReplyDeleteMy initial response to the genomic revolution, and in particular this video, is that the genome revolution is very interesting and exciting. In particular, the case-study of the women who had various types of cancer, and was later found to have certain genetic mutations. The ability of studying genomes is very exciting, as it, as the speaker noted, has the potential to save a lot of lives, simply based on treatment and prevention techniques.
ReplyDeleteThere may be some social and research effects of the “tipping point”. Both of these effects may have positive or negative effects. Social effects may include positive effects such as providing more specific treatment, which will ultimately help save and extend lives for family members, However, a negative social effect may be that as more individuals have access to the genome information, there may be individuals who do not use the genetic information for positive means. In addition, as the speaker noted, more individuals living may diminish the food resources of the globe. Research effects may include positive effects such as genome- specific medications. Negative research effects may be that as interest in researching the genome project increases, environmental influences of diseases may not be researched as thoroughly.
An additional comment about the genomic revolution is that the genomic revolution certainly has its frightening- sides. However, the ability to save lives, simply with a genetic test, is an exciting possibility. We simply have to hope that the world uses this genetic information for healthy, positive factors, which will ultimately help our society.
My initial response to this video is that genome sequencing involves a lot more than I had originally thought. I had no idea that there was as much room for growth in this field, and opportunities for development. I particularly liked the case about Nick, and after reading that I wanted to learn more about the topic and how it could further help others.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting when Richard says that using the genome as a diagnostic could add 5 to 20 years to humans life, seeing as that is such a significant amount of time it almost seems impossible. That being said I loved the connections that he made to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). I just wrote a paper last semester on the effects of GMOs on the human body, and it makes me wish that I was able to talk about Genome Sequencing in connection to GMO consumption in the paper. Because like Richard says “nobody wants to volunteer to stop eating”.
I feel that there certainly are boundaries that shouldn’t be crossed when applying genome sequencing to technology such as an app on the iPhone. This is where the “tipping point” comes into play. There are many positive social benefits such as helping to solve previously life taking sicknesses, but once crossing that boarder negative social effects can come into play.
At some point, you have to just let life take its natural course because in the end we can’t all live forever with no consequences.
I believe that this will be a great step in the right direction. If genome sequencing was already to help people in discovering what is wrong with them. The example of the boy’s, nick’s, stomach was a great example because it shows the extreme positive that genome sequencing can have. There are so many people that continually go to the doctor unaware of what is wrong with them. They go to so many doctors only to get the same answer, “We’re not sure what’s wrong.” It is a frustrating and difficult process as the ill continue to search for a proper diagnosis and help. Gene sequencing helps them get the correct answer and can lead to the cure they’ve been searching for.
ReplyDeleteAs with everything new, of course there will be controversy around genome sequencing. People will have questions and concerns because they have a lack of knowledge and therefore need to be informed. My grandparents are still concerned and confused about the internet because they’re afraid their information will end up somewhere, but they don’t even use it. I’m hoping that it doesn’t become a requirement that all people learn more about their genes, but instead it should be there as an aid for those who are left confused and misled on diagnoses. It should be there as a helping hand when the search for an answer becomes fruitless.
I think you’re right about how genome sequencing will prevent frustrating situations where patients are unable to be diagnosed. Without genome sequencing, Nick would have continued to undergo many surgeries and would have lived a painful and possibly short life because his doctors would have been able to determine what was wrong with him. It can also help prevent misdiagnoses, such as in the case of the Beery twins, who would have been treated for a condition that they did not actually have while their actual condition was essentially curable. Genomics can help many people who have currently confounding medical conditions that doctors are unable to diagnose, and can save them a lot of suffering. I think you also bring up a good point about older generations fearing new technology, now matter how positive the impact of that technology may be. We need to be helping these people understand the new technology so it becomes less “unknown” to them and they can fully realize its benefits.
DeleteI am in a state of awe after hearing Resnick’s account of the genomic revolution. The rate at which genomic technology is advancing is not so much surprising to me, but instead a bit overwhelming! It’s amazing to think that in the near future technology will be able to sequence everyone’s genome, whether we like it or not. I agree with Resnick’s urging of society to tune in and influence the genomic revolution that’s happening all around them. After all, at this point there is no stopping or slowing the rate of the revolution’s advancement. Because of this, I find it important that society stay as informed and up to date as possible regarding the capabilities of the genomic revolution—which include benefits (such as early detection of rare and fatal diseases), as well as risks. The pro’s of this amazing scientific and technological achievement are obvious, while its risks more often then not require subjective interpretation. For example, Resnick outlines the example of a “Genomic LinkedIn” made possible by the ability to code everyone’s genome, to which one can argue that individuals must give consent in order for their genomic sequencing to be made public. The same goes for his example of the “cheating gene”, where individuals are able to determine whether or not their partners are inherently cheaters by swabbing the inside of their mouth. Stealing and testing someone’s DNA without them giving their consent is and will always be illegal, and I don’t feel as if the genomic revolution is going to change that. Instead, new laws and regulations (just like with any other scientific/technological advancement) will have to be put in place in order to control the cultural risks the genomic revolution poses to society. Overall, yes, one can argue that the tipping point in the genomic revolution could have negative side effects on society. But, one must also recognize that the benefits of the revolution are undoubtedly greater than its risks. Therefore, I feel the focus must be kept on the positive outcomes the genomic revolution will have on society and medicine overall, ones that will greatly improve the future of healthcare and pave the way for advancements in preventative medicine.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I knew before about genomic sequencing, I was always optimistic about the ways in which we can use this new knowledge to improve health care. I did not consider, however, the full extent to which the genomic revolution will improve the way we treat people. Something that struck me initially about Resnick’s speech was how he compared the treatment of the woman with recurring cancer to the outdated, unscientific, and dangerous practice of bloodletting. Because of advances in genomics, the method of treating cancer patients that is currently seen as standard could potentially be viewed as completely outdated and even harmful in as little as ten years. This made me think of how much our current medical system still needs to progress, and the two stories that followed the story of the woman with cancer showed just how much can be fixed with the help of DNA sequencing. Nick, the boy with the immunological reaction to his food, had his quality of life significantly improved with the discovery of the genetic mutation that was causing his condition, while the Beery twins had their disability almost completely alleviated. Genomics has the potential to significantly improve and prolong many lives.
ReplyDeleteOf course, there are still negative aspects of genomic sequencing and its decreasing price and increasing accessibility that need to be addressed. The information about peoples’ genetic sequences could be misused in a way, because the information it provides is not always 100% certain. For example, someone who has a genetic predisposition to cardiomyopathy isn’t necessarily going to develop the disease with certainty. It would be going to far to choose a president based on their DNA, or to, for example, choose to hire employees based on their genetic traits. It would also be irrational to leave your partner because they have the “cheating gene”, since this doesn’t necessarily mean that they will definitely cheat. I believe with proper education about the information provided by genetic sequences, issues with this can be avoided. Ultimately, the genomic revolution will have an extremely positive impact on treatment methods so long as the information we obtain is used properly.
I completely agree with your statement about how the genomic revolution is being used today to treat people. I too was amazed when Resnick talks about Nick and the Beery twins in how genomics had the potential to improve their lives. I also agree with how people's genetic sequences can be misused if they were made public, such as with a presidential campaign or employment. I too agree that with proper education these issues can be avoided.
DeleteWhat amazed me about this video was the rate at which the human genome project had sped up. I always heard about this project but never full understood what it meant—but thought that it was this long and tedious project. However, when watching this video I was in awe by how fast a person’s genome could now be sequenced and how much cheaper it has become. I also knew that by looking at a person’s genome it could help save lives but never to the extent as it did with the twins and the little boy who is now able to eat steak. Also when Resnick described this “tipping point” of genome sequencing becoming cheap to the point that anyone can do it there are many results that can occur. Some positive results will be that we will have better understanding of many diseases and how they can be prevented by looking at a their DNA. By being able to do this, more preventative measures can be taken in reducing the likelihood of a person’s chances from obtaining the disease. A negative result that could happen is when Resnick talks about presidential candidates submitting their genome sequencing to the public—which could sway a person’s vote (which is being based on their health instead of their ability to run the country). Also employers can take a person’s genome into consideration when deciding if they want to hire them. It could give the employers the initiative to refuse them work based on their genetic probability of becoming unhealthy. Regardless of all of this, it seems that the genome project is increasing at an unbelievable rapid pace that no one could of imagined.
ReplyDeleteI think that the world is headed in an amazing direction. Soon many diseases can be archived by mutations and when someone is sick we can simply sequence their genome in order to find out what exactly is happening to them. It is a huge advancement in the medical field and can lead to prolonged life and maybe if possible, deletion of harmful mutations during pregnancy. When getting your genome sequenced is the norm how will this affect society? Well first off I don’t think that people with inferior genes will be shunned upon society like in Gattaca. Sure, I assume that people with “advanced" genes will have an upper leg on the people with “inferior”, but I don’t see how portraying that in a hierarchical society would really be an ethical thing to do. That is at least until the people with “inferior” genes are the minority. Research wise perhaps it could to lead to altering a persons genes in vivo. Though I assume that most people would say that this is unethical and it could lead to as many of years of debate as the abortion argument has. Yes sequencing the human genome will help the world stay healthier and live longer, but what about the side effects? Of course there are side effects of increasing the longevity of human life. There are an immense amount of people in the world who are malnourished, undernourished, and suffering from starvation. If we just increase the average age of life, but fail to increase the amount of food then where would that get us? We would be stuck on an overpopulated planet with no ethical response. What. Do we let all of the people with no access to food just die? We have already spent millions of dollars to attempt to help them and aid them. I’m not saying that cheap genome sequencing is a bad thing at all, I am just saying that we have to consider all outcomes before we regulate it into society as a social norm.
ReplyDeleteThe ethics behind the possibilities ahead of us are definitely something to consider. I feel like a lot of people who don't fully understand genetics will misinterpret what the goals behind the Human Genome Project and that's when those with so-called "inferior" genes will be treated differently. Ethically speaking, I feel that many societies are not ready for this type of scientific advancement but it is certainly relevant and should definitely be utilized by professionals in clinical/research settings.
DeleteMy initial reaction to this ted talk was shocking because it is hard to imagine a world where people have access to other people’s gene sequences by just going trough an app on an iPhone. This may sound extreme to us today, but at some point in the future it could be a part of everyday life. The genomic revolution has many benefits such as testing someone’s genetic sequence to determine any possible health risks in their coding. Another benefit could be altering an infant’s genetic sequence to make them compatible for donating blood or organs to family members who may desperately need it. These positives come with some drawbacks, however. Having access to your own genome sequence as well as other people’s may cause our society to begin valuing some people more than others based on the quality of the genes we deem valuable. This can cause people to not be considered for jobs or cause unfair chances for some. The quality of healthcare will increase from having a better chance of preventing diseases, but our society’s value on things may change. The genome revolution would save many lives and increase quality of life, but what would our society do with that much power and information at such a low cost?
ReplyDeleteEllen, I agree with your concern over the change in societal values that could result from universal access to genomic sequencing. It is human nature to seek dominance and that instinct is what makes us prone to greed and consequently, corrupted by power. However, I wonder if the benefits from access to such info could really be considered an increase in our quality of life if a portion of the population is shamed and/or alienated based on something as small as their DNA. After all, there are other factors that impact who we are and make us valuable individuals beyond genetics. Additionally, even if genome knowledge extended our life, would those extra years be "quality" since they might be plagued by anxiety over developing something a test says we're 50% likely to develop? Or, what if we had to endure years of grueling side effects from preventative treatment after early diagnosis after being warned by genome sequencing results rather than spending those years blissfully ignorant and acting as we please?
DeleteRichard Resnick's Ted Talk shed a massive light on the Humane Genome Project. I knew that sequencing the human genome was beneficial when it came to screening for diseases but I didn't know it could be used as a means for diagnostic testing. For instance, the little boy who couldn't eat without getting dangerously bloated was able to be diagnosed and cured of his illness because his doctor had experience with clinical genetics and decided to run some tests. After hearing that story, I was able to fully appreciate the full potential of genetic sequencing.
ReplyDeleteThe reduction in cost does present some issues. If genetic sequencing becomes affordable to everyone and ends up being utilized by a majority of the population, many people might abuse the information. Sure, screening and diagnostics will greatly benefit most but some people who don't fully understand how genetics works might take the information out of context. In the case where Resnick mentions the "cheating" gene, I can think of plenty of people who would actually take it seriously. Furthermore, many people may live their lives in fear of getting the disease they are at risk for even if it is only a slight chance they will get it. Insurance companies would also have a field day with genetic tests and may alter coverage for those with certain risks. Overall, I think that the benefits of genetic sequencing greatly outweigh the costs and I am excited to see the project advance.
Jaimie,
DeleteI agree with your point that the benefits outweigh the costs when it comes to genetic sequencing. The cost of genetic testing will greatly affect both the social and research aspect of it. While in research it will be a benefit with researchers being able to do more with less of a cost, I believe that in the social aspect it will be risk. The availability of genetic testing to the general public will greatly influence the possibility of genetic discrimination.
My initial response to this video is that genetic testing can be extremely helpful. Genetic testing has improved greatly since when the Human Genome Project was started in 1990. It has both given the world much more knowledge about the human genome and made it much cheaper to get genetic testing. I think it could make huge advancements in both slowing the progress of disease or even preventing disease, much like it could for the family of the woman with cancer. The story about the twins diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy exemplifies how revolutionary human genome sequencing truly is. It’s fascinating that Resnick talks about how “using the genome as a universal diagnostic is upon us today.” It is also incredible the rate at which gene sequencing is advancing.
ReplyDeleteI think the research effects of this could be very positive. It could unlock various genetic clues that indicate disease. It could help prevent people from developing various diseases because they could be detected much earlier on. It could inherently provide a cure for many diseases that the world is affected by. Socially I believe this could be a problem. If everyone is sequenced, then perhaps people will not want to procreate with other people for fear that they both have a certain mutation, and their child will have a disease or disability. On the other hand this could also be helpful. If couples knew the direct risks of having children before procreating they could make a more educated decision. However, if sequencing the human genome becomes that much easier and more available then I worry about what will come next. Where will new research be developed and what could be the consequences?
I found the Ted Talk, “Welcome to the Genomic Revolution,” by Richard Resnick very interesting. When I initially watched the video, I was a bit surprised at how quickly this revolution is occurring, and how we must be prepared to face such drastic technological changes in the near future. Resnick discussed the idea that there will eventually be a “tipping point,” or a time when everyone in the US will be able to get his or her genomes sequenced. This type of revolution will probably increase overall interest in genomics and will also increase the likelihood of the average person receiving genetic testing. I think that this will have both positive and negative effects, but believe such a revolution would be especially advantageous to the field of healthcare, as this testing would be able to increase the quality and efficiency of preventative medicine. I agree with Resnick when he said that, “...like any new technology, it's really in humanity's hands to wield it for the betterment of mankind, or not.” As much as I believe that genome sequencing would allow for more people to screen early for potentially preventable diseases, I do also believe that because it would be more easily accessible to the general public, the system would be abused. While genomic sequencing could be beneficial, it also could reveal very personal information, and having the ability to be so informed could be harmful for the average person. Such genetic profiling could also be used against those who are testing, especially because this information may be required to be revealed to institutions such as the government, so it is crucial that we manage this system, rather than abusing it.
ReplyDeleteNeha,
DeleteI agree with your comment about how genetic profiling will be required to be revealed and that this will cause problems in the future. There is already such a thin line with what the government allows to be private and what they have access to. I imagine that this be the focus of many debates in the future and a lot of legislation will result from it in years to come.
My initial response to the video is that this technology is truly amazing. I had no idea that this industry was growing at such a rapid rate, and it opens yet another door in to the world of medicine that will offer infinite opportunities for the future. Once Resnick’s “tipping point” is reached, the frightening potential negative impact would be seen in the form of a new era of discrimination. While this is considered confidential health information now, if sequencing truly becomes available to nearly everyone, stringent regulations will need to be set in place in order to protect individual privacy if that is even possible. That being said, I strongly believe the benefits outweigh the risks at this point. The advancements in medicine this offers could truly revolutionize the healthcare industry. From a diagnostic standpoint, the ability to pinpoint a specific cause of a patient’s problem rather than only being able to treat symptoms is life changing. From a preventative standpoint, genomic sequencing offers an accurate and very cost effective method for screenings to allow doctors the opportunity for an early diagnosis, yielding a better as well as cheaper prognosis.
ReplyDeleteAlthough still in the early stages of development, I believe the discussion of genomic sequencing needs to continue. It is clearly an incredible advancement in technology, but like many other revolutionary developments has potential consequences that can only be managed through education and conversation.
Stephanie,
DeleteI like the point you make about the “benefits outweighing the risks” in your post. I think a lot of times, especially in the health care field, people can tend to think any risk associated with a test or treatment is simply too large to take a chance with. Also, there could also be some concern that genomic sequencing is operating on a “slippery slope” – if this type of testing is allowed, what’s next? How will it be controlled and regulated? But as you said, with genomic sequencing, I too think the potential benefits are too massive to sweep under the rug as simply unethical or too morally questionable. I agree, the genomic revolution will revolutionize health care.
Resnick closes the video with the comment that this new technology is in humanity’s hands to wield for the betterment of everyone, but my initial thought was that I don’t trust humanity to responsibly employ this new knowledge tool. Across history it seems the advantaged get access to this sort of thing first and then use it to better themselves and their friends and further secure their place in the status quo before even considering passing it on to others who are less advantaged. Such injustice is evident in how world health expenditure and HRH distribution are not proportional to the distribution of the global disease burden.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I am still human and thus possess a curiosity to learn as much about the human condition as is available to me which makes me willing to put aside my initial mistrust to consider the pros/cons of accessible genome sequencing technology. In regards to the social impact of most US citizens having access to sequencing, I think it has the potential to create an obsessive, hypochondriac-like culture because of America’s drive to be the best. Next thing we know there will be a campaign to design the perfect genome and/or fix the entire population’s little quirky mutations so America can be #1 in health again. Granted, this would be great for researchers. Not only would they have plenty of research avenues to explore, they would also have the financial backing of an alerted public and government to do so. Additionally, if most of the population was to be sequenced and find quirks, that would mean increased demand and business for any kind of doctor willing to treat issues identified by genome sequencing.
However, the dawn of mass sequencing will present doctors and lawmakers with some ethical dilemmas. Doctors will have to take care to not become lazy and overly dependent upon genome sequencing as a diagnostic and underestimate the role of one’s environment and personal experiences on development and health. Furthermore, HIPPA laws and their penalties for violation will have to be expanded and/or totally revamped. For example, does Resnick’s life insurance company have the right to the results of his genome test and if so, what’s to keep them or any other company from exploiting or denying consumers based on that info? Furthermore, if “chromosomal LinkedIn” existed, how would its consent requests be handled? Or, what if its system was hacked and all of the personal health info that it contained sold and abused? These are things to think about if universal genomic sequencing is in our future.
I share a similar philosophical dilemma, Logan.
DeleteHumans have a tendency to exploit for personal gains, yet many advancements in technology benefit all members of society.
Yes, balance and regulation would play a significant role in moderating the scope to which institutions can use this information. I feel it's safe to say, when government has record of citizen information, they will do whatever action without consequences ( patriot act/NSA actions). Hiring cyber/network security force will be crucial as a step towards keeping a publicly-accessible de-identified database safe. But there will always remain the threat of hacking, no matter how good the security team is.
On the terms of American wanting to be the healthiest nation, America is an individualistic country. Using history as a projection for the future, America has not made attempts to be the #1 leader in any category (education attainment, quality of life, gender equality, freedom of press) (we were the most obese country for some time, so we had that title going for us). I do not feel that there will be a race from American politicians and leaders to start now.
I do feel that one of the most pressing issues is trying not to become gene-obsessed on a societal level. Maybe if genetic testing is a common practice, the excitement will boom and the beginning and then dwindle down, like most technological advances. Maybe we'll get desensitized to the topic altogether, after 20years of genetic record inauguration.
Very good point brought up about how this changes the field of medicine. The battle between nature v nurture. Doctors not do enough or too much? Currently US health system both under and overtreats. I feel the disparity in how health is handled will still be determined by race and class.
Logan, I am hesitant to admit it but I, too, share your views on humanity and how we have natural tendencies that lean towards greed and exploitation. You have touched on some key points on how the genome revolution can easily get out of hand, one example being that over time, the US will feel the need to create the "perfect genome", but who's to even say what is "perfect"? Furthermore, a point that I did not think of was the potential for doctors to overly rely on the genome sequencing and become lazy in their practice. If this were the case, I feel as though there needs to be some sort of re-education about the roles doctors would play if our health care is further leaning towards the direction of "prevention".
DeleteAs this science is (quickly) advancing, there should be adjustments, policies, and changes made to prevent the genome revolution having a negative impact on society.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the video I was amazed at how far we've come with this genomic revolution. I thought this video provided a lot of useful information as well as adding a little humor to lighten the mood. Because of this revolution, it can provide many possibilities to answers and solutions to many medical problems. Its crazy to think how far advanced we are in technology where we can simply find our relatives through an app as Resnick mentioned!!! When he mentioned how efficient and cheap these genetic sequencing and testing will be it brought a lot of hope but doubts and concerns as well. I thought about how these genetic testing may be bad for the population if used incorrectly and if people abuse it. I feel that some people may rely on these testings too much on things that genetics may not always be correct like Resnick mentioned the "cheating gene". It also made me think about how maybe someday as this becomes a "norm" people may be required to give this information in order to get a job or even to date! People may use this information to discriminate others. How crazy is that?! But once the population gets these testings, there will be an entire database of peoples genomes and genetic information and if placed in the wrong hands, it holds many consequences. There could be cyber terrorism, leaked in private information to others, blackmailing, etc. Even as Resnick joked about, it may be used in politics soon! Although there are some possible consequences, it holds many benefits. The main benefit that I could think about is the amount of lives it could possibly save from preventable disease. If used as a preventative health care system, it could save people from cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and more! Through the stories that Resnick provided throughout his presentation, this can be definitely beneficial in the medical settings. This in turn will lead us to healthier, productive and longer lives! But as I said before, this can also lead to consequences such as overpopulation, food shortages, etc. All in all, this revolution can change the world and holds many possibilities to human kind. I believe that the pros outweighs the cons in that the amount of lives it can save through these sequencing. I believe before humans explore these benefits, I think the government needs to provide a safe, secure network and protection for this information and privacy of others. Its incredible on how far scientists have come and there's more discoveries yet to come! I think this can be used correctly and hopefully help many people around the world.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this TedTalk. The speaker was knowledgeable and, most importantly, he kept the talk interesting, not dry. I had no idea that genome sequencing techniques had advanced so much since the Human Genome Project. It is amazing how many genomes can be sequenced at once. As for the "tipping point" that he mentions, I think that it would be advantageous to use for medical purposes. I think that it would be nice to have the ability to know if you are predisposed to having cancer or other illnesses that can be prevented or treated at early stages (TP53, for example). On a social level, this would be beneficial because it could raise life expectancy, as well as, quality of life. I like the idea of using the genome as a universal diagnostic to better the lives of those living. From a research standpoint, the sequenced genomes can be used as a "bank of knowledge" from which scientists can pull more examples to learn more about the many different diseases that affect people everywhere. One negative social implication that I got from the video as he was talking about the politicians and and "chromosomal linkedin" was that the commodification of genome sequencing can lead to invasions of privacy, in terms of enticing one to show one's genome sequence, and also things can really get out of hand. It seems to me that, if things get out of hand, one's sequenced genome can be judged against them, almost like a criminal record. The genome being used for relationship compatibility in terms of cheating and the healthy versus sick genes you may pass on. Socially, it would also be detrimental to us if we had to ultimately increase the production of genetically modified foods to keep up with our growing population. I think that Resnick makes a good point when he says that we have the choice to wield the technology for the betterment of mankind or not.
ReplyDeleteWhile watching this video, I was surprised to see Resnick’s charts showing the rapid, exponentially growing research centered around this genome revolution. I couldn’t help but think that out of ~25 years of research, some the millions that have been put to these projects could be allocated toward implementing other prevention services. The most prevalent diseases in the US are cancer, CVD, diabetes, and obesity is rising as well. It is true that these diseases can be attributed to genes, however I think that physicians can use other ways to aid in prolonging a disease free life by changing a person’s lifestyle. Also other economical, social, and environmental factors play a huge part in these big health problems which are far easier to change than in an already coded genome sequence. It seems as though this genome revolution is something more relevant with those with a rare disease.
ReplyDeleteOverall I see more negative impacts than positive in this upcoming technology. Although it is great for people to have a better understanding of such a complex system, the “tipping point” allows for the easy accessibility that can be abused by society. This is a somewhat pessimistic view, yet it is not hard to see that having access to such personal details about people is a slippery slope into creating a new form of discrimination among society. People with other’s genetic information will now say that they may be genetically “better” than others. On the other hand, it it amazing to see how medical science has advanced this far to pinpoint a diagnosis to its most fundamental level in the body. I could see this being good for future parents who don’t know what possible gene mutations could be getting passed down. Yet overall, I believe that people continue to have an affinity with technological advancements that it will downplay the necessity to include other more simple, and maybe even more effective, prevention programs in the US health care system.
I think that it is amazing how already so much can be done with genome sequencing yet this is only the beginning of the capabilities. I believe that mapping genomes is a great thing and that everyone should have the ability to have themselves sequenced if they want, but that it can also have many draw backs. Some positive aspects are that it can give people ideas about what they can expect as they age, It can also lead to more effective treatment for illnesses and create cures for many syndromes. Sequencing can also give couples more information before they decide to start families (such as finding out if they are carriers for anything). There, however will be negative implications to genome sequencing. It may give people information about themselves that they do not want to know or that sends them into a panic, such as probabilities, not realities, that they will develop cancer or diseases. It can also lead to invasions of privacy between individuals and insurance companies and employers. I believe that genomes should be private information but this will not be a reality. It will become public record and may interfere with people’s livelihoods, rather than give them answers. As genomes continue to become more widespread and accessible privacy will become a great issue and will lead to many laws and spread to many fields besides medicine.
ReplyDeleteI never really realized that as the accessibility increases, the chance for privacy would decrease. As I think about it more, it does pose a great problem for individuals who are tested because their genetic test could be used against them. Therefore, there definitely needs to be strong regulation put in place as the accessibility is increased as technology advances.
DeleteWhile I do agree that increase in accessibility will lead to many new laws and ethical conflicts, there is still hope. Those new laws will be laws ensuring confidentiality and regulations to avoid any unwanted disclosure of personal information. HIPAA is an organization today which ensures complete confidentiality for patients. If an individual chooses to opt for genetic testing, they may ask for specific findings, excluding those which they don't wish to hear about. This is similar to blood testing or urine sampling. Each one does not test a patient for every single disease or medical issue, only specific ones being tested for. If a genetic tester feel obligated to inform patients of unwanted findings, then that is merely a measure of ethics and their own feeling of obligation. Also, if patients do choose to allow full disclosure to the public, the following consequences ought to be pointed out to them prior.
DeleteInitially, I thought Resnick brought up a great point how due to the completion of the Human Genome project in 2003, that we are now able to take people with a disease (ie. Breast Cancer) and compare their DNA to the human genome and see what is different with that particular person’s DNA. From there, we are then able to see what differences they have in their DNA and thus give them the proper treatment for the condition they save. Technology like this has the ability to save billions upon billions of dollars for the healthcare industry. Imagine one day, you go to the doctor’s office with an unexplainable ache and he is able to pull up your DNA and compare it to the human genome and tell you right then and there what is wrong with you. From there he can prescribe you the proper medication. Resnick’s idea of a “tipping point” where everyone will eventually be able to get themselves genetically sequenced has some merit, but drawbacks as well. On the good side, it would make treating disease much more efficient, allowing doctors to compare your DNA with the human genome in order to find out what is wrong with you, and would open up other avenues such as what foods best function in your body versus your friend’s; opening up a whole new world of nutrition research. However, I am concerned that a technological advancement like this does have the possibility of reintroducing racism and ideas of “genetic superiority” into our society. There is a risk of people with “better genetics” holding themselves as superior over those with “lesser genetics” that may get sick more often or have more variations in their DNA, etc. It could be used negatively against people who are perceived to be on the lower end of the socioeconomic and social class scale. I am interested to see where this technology will bring humanity. I would be interested to see further genetic research done in the fields of exercise physiology and nutrition where maybe one day we can find a “perfect diet and exercise regime” for a person based on their DNA and what works best for their body.
ReplyDeleteI like your point of the potential to cause ideas of "genetic superiority". This was not an aspect I had previously considered as result of genome sequencing. While I think this is something that should be considered with increased availability of an individual's genome, I think that the benefits of genome sequencing in the healthcare field outweigh the potential risks. The potential for this to occur could allow for regulation of who is allowed access to sequenced genomes (i.e. they should not necessarily be made public, but rather be kept private).
DeleteThe magnitude and scope of the “genomic revolution” that Richard Resnick explained in his Ted Talk was simply mind blowing to me, but as he explains, has been a long time coming. Since the Human Genome Project was completed in 2003, there has been non-stop work done to make DNA sequencing more efficient, cost-effective, and less time consuming. As Resnick explained, modern machines can sequence 200 gigabases in a week, compared to the 3 gigabases the machine used during the Human Genome Project was able to churn out. This increase in efficiency in only ten years time is, to me, one of the most baffling parts about the genomic revolution explained in this Ted Talk. If this increase in efficiency continues, as Resnick’s expects, DNA sequencing will soon be available for everyone in the world to access. I found this metric to be both encouraging and inspiring – being able to sequence everyone’s genome would undoubtedly lead to decreased morbidity and mortality in our population. Maybe some genetic diseases or syndromes that people have, inherit, or will develop, by no fault of their own, can be eradicated before they even take shape or become symptomatic.
ReplyDeleteThis seems like a win-win situation, but of course, nothing is always quite as good as it may seem. When the world has reached a “tipping point,” where genome sequencing is cheap enough so that everyone in the US will be able to get be sequenced, there will inevitably be many ethical and moral concerns that have to be addressed. Ethically speaking, I think much concern will arise over the thought of someone’s DNA sequence falling into the wrong hands. It doesn’t seem overtly hard to obtain DNA-yielding material (a hair, saliva, etc.) from someone, and coupling that with the low cost, it could become somewhat easy to process someone else’s DNA sequence without their knowledge, and do whatever they please with it. Morally speaking, knowing you, or someone else’s DNA sequence, can lead to stereotyping, judgments, and other morally questionable behavior. There are plenty of moral and ethical issues that come with the genomic revolution, and they’re all important to address in length.
Lastly, what I found to be both refreshing and interesting in this Ted Talk, was Resnick’s small plug about human’s environmental footprint on our planet. It’s great to have less morbidity and mortality in our population due to DNA sequencing, and the prospect of adding 20 years to our lives is exciting, but we won’t be able to do this without developing ways to genetically modify our food in a way that can withstand harsh conditions and feed an aging population.
Clare-
DeleteI never thought about how even though genetic sequencing is a great technological advance, and it has the potential to add 20 years to our lives, without developing more effective ways to genetically modify our food so it can withstand our changing climate, we will not be able to enjoy the full potential of genetic sequencing. Good point!
My initial response to this video was that it was incredibly interesting and easy to understand. Resnick created linkages between very complex genomic ideas and through story telling about patient care clarified the usages of genomic mapping in the daily world.
ReplyDeleteOn the positive side of this “tipping point” the medical implications are incredibly vast and further our understanding of almost any crisis. By furthering understanding on the human genome disease will be diagnosed faster and treatment will happen more effectively. This “tipping point” can also have immense social implications like strengthening family tree linkages and potentially modernizing the online dating platform. By finding the “perfect” genomic compatible date there could be more chemistry or even more trust in terms of political rank. When looking at the negative affects of reaching a “tipping point” with less natural death leading to longer lives our expendable earth with limited resources becomes more rapidly used up. The hunger epidemic will continue, and the thirsty earth will only get thirstier.
When looking at the genomic revolution it would be interesting to also look at genomic similarities with different animals and organisms.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the video, my initial reaction was that all of the great possibilities that could come out of completely understanding the human genome would be groundbreaking. There are so many opportunities for research, and the knowledge gathered would be possibly the greatest progress that our generation will see. Not only in understanding, but also in clinical application. This could change the way our healthcare is provided, making it more efficient in patient care. Although the possibilities are endless, there are numerous implications that we as a society are not prepared for. As ¬¬¬¬Resnick pointed out, there are the logistical implications such as food, but there are also many ethical circumstances that need to be thought about. For one, it could bring out a whole new type of discrimination that we have not thought about, nor we can sincerely understand at this point. Could a person be discriminated against for a bad set of genes? This is only the tip of the iceberg that comes with this kind of thorough genetic testing. We have no definitive line, and that will need to be created with the entire genome at our fingertips. For example, how much is your employer allowed to enquire about genome? The entire genome or select genes of their choosing? With issues as large as that, they need to be explored. Our society needs to prepare for that spike that Resnick speaks of. If we simply wait until it happens, we may find ourselves in a moral stalemate. With the future in front of our eyes, we must embrace it, but be wary of the changes it may bring.
ReplyDeleteHi Kerrin,
DeleteI never considered the potential that genetic sequencing could have to increase the efficiency with which doctors can provide patient care. I was only really thinking about this in a research context, so that is a very interesting point.
My initial reaction to Richard Resnick’s talk about genomic revolution was at first one of excitement for the numerous medical advances provided to us with genomic sequencing, but soon turned to questioning about the appropriate use of genomic sequencing. With genetic sequencing as described in the specific cases he mentioned during his TED talk could be used to better the medical society and provide more options and solutions for people who find themselves in certain medical situations. The genomic sequencing provides a better understanding of a disease that someone is suffering with and provides physicians with better, more effective treatment options. Genomic sequencing is also beneficial when used for preventative measures, by finding mutations before symptoms present themselves. The “tipping point” comes when genetic sequencing is used for personal gains, such as when he talked about using your genome as part of your campaign platform. Using your genetic sequence for personal health gains is beneficial, but it crosses a line when its used for personal gains to set yourself above others. The question of genetic discrimination also comes into play when you start using genomic sequencing in this way. In conclusion, the advancing of genetic sequencing and our ability to utilize its outputs can both have positive and negative effects both in research and social settings.
ReplyDeleteI like your comment on the social and ethical implications of this genomic revolution especially the tipping point you described. It's interesting (and scary) to think of why we value the personal health gains over the societal health gains when it comes to using that information we will have access to thanks to genetic sequencing. I truly believe it will become part of our reality very soon. There is no doubt that genetic testing will continue to improve (and it is already too late to stop the change from the private to the public sector of that genetic data). But it's not too late to educate society and train medical professionals to use wisely the information they will be given. As most other students have mentioned, the technological advances made will positively affect the medical industry. But perhaps with the right information (and maybe a few imposed ethical limits, because face it, we are human), the social repercussions won't be as negative as we anticipate them to be. Or is that an unrealistic expectation?
DeleteI thought that the information presented in this video was extremely interesting and I never realized how much gene technology has improved in just a few years. There have been huge leaps in sequencing capacity in just a decade, and it’s truly remarkable to see all the potential there is in the field of genetics for understanding the progression and treatment of diseases. As Resnick mentioned, genome sequencing is becoming increasingly inexpensive and I believe that this will have countless positive effects on the development of screening and treatments of a wide array of diseases causing problems today. For example, by sequencing so many people, it will be possible to establish databases in which researchers can look between relatives, generations, locations, and all sorts of other variables to study environmental effects on genes and their influence on the development of cancer and heart disease. The ability to sequence so many genomes will enable researchers to understand more about the genetic factors that cause disease and possibly improve screening capabilities and implement more effective gene therapies to cure crippling and deadly disorders. Despite the important positive consequences of more readily available genetic sequencing, I think there is a lot of potential for problematic results. For example, if genetic screening becomes more commonplace, screening for every possible disease or defect may become compulsory, even if those results are not critical to know. It is also important to remember that while a person’s DNA may contain the correct sequences to cause disease, if those genes are not being expressed in a person, then genetic screening may cause undue stress and suffering. I also believe that there is a lot of potential for discrimination based on genetic sequences. Though a fictional scenario, the movie GATTACA provides a very interesting example of how compulsory genetic screening and discrimination go hand in hand and can cause serious problems for those people whose genetic sequences are not considered perfect or good enough. However, I do believe that there is a long way to go before life in the film reflects reality, and that the potential benefits to society far outweigh the extreme concerns. I do believe, however, that strict regulation is both important and necessary as genetic sequencing becomes more commonplace, and that people must still have the option to choose whether they want to be sequenced and whether their sequenced information can be shared. Genetic sequencing has an unbelievable potential to improve health worldwide, but it is critical that it is used only for the betterment of society and not used in ways that can harm people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of what you said. I was shocked and surprised at the amount of technological advances in genetic sequencing and I think it will do great things for us as a society. I also agree that I think we need strict regulation because this is still a new frontier and we need to begin to create new laws and restrictions. However, I disagree with you in that I think this film could become a reality in less time than we think. But you are right its important to keep these advancements for the betterment of society and create rules to avoid the detriments.
DeleteDear Katie,
DeleteI really liked your post, in particular the part where you talk about the positives of screening for disease within individuals and how that could be applied between family members and other factors. I also found the point about genetic screening being a stressful and potentially unnecessary practice especially interesting. Some individuals might not want to know that they are at an increased risk of a disease but I believe that this would not be a problem. Genetic screening comes with a voluntary choice of actually doing the testing and finding out the results. People will know that in doing the testing, some unexpected results may arise.
TEST
ReplyDeleteThis video is very informative and easy to understand. I really liked how Richard Resnick put genetic testing into perspective for the viewers. When we learn about genetic testing in class we see numbers and words on a page. What Resnick does well is he gives the numbers meaning. For example, when he says there are 3 billion genes in the human body he shows a screen with tiny colored pixels and said the we would need three of those screens to see the equivalent 3 billion genes in the human body. Additionally, he tells stories about how genetic testing is beneficial – it helps determine if someone has genes that cause them to be more likely to develop disease or not. As the price of the genetic test decreases due to the increases in technology development, there is no doubt that more and more people will want to test their genes. I believe that it is beneficial for research in disease prevention, management, and treatment. However, I do not think that everyone should get genetically tested. Yes, it is useful for individuals who are predisposed to diseases in terms of prevention. But, if genetic testing is used to gain an advantage over someone else, it begins to cross the line. If everyone were required to release their genetic information, there is a chance where that genetic information could be used as reasons against the individual. If one person has the genetic sequence determining they are likely to develop cancer, jobs could potentially use that as reason not to hire them. Therefore, eventually gene testing could be used for discrimination, just as age and gender has been used.
ReplyDelete(Part 1/2)
ReplyDeleteMy initial response to Resnick’s presentation was, “seems right.” I was not surprised at Resnick’s statements of the continuing technological advances and the progression of genomic sequencing. It’s common knowledge that the current rate of technological advancement is increasing at an exponential rate, e.g. Moore’s Law, and understanding from Richard Feynman’s “ Plenty of Room at the Bottom”. The fact that the gene-sequencing machines of the year 2011 are 200 times faster than the ones used between 1990 and 2003. Consequentially, services and products relating to said advancements become cheaper and more accessible, e.g. and for gene sequence relating to Huntington’s disease. Price falling by a rate of 100 million / gene sequenced. Gene sequencing tests have been around for a while, such as tests for the BRCA1 gene (for breast cancer).
Let’s also take the time to appreciate the theme that the common-person (even college-educated) knows only a fraction of all world events. This is the result from the combination of deliberate omission (government, and CIA), choice of omission (mainstream media), and voluntary omission (for whatever reason, not taking the personal time to navigate through credible sources to investigate new findings). The fact that the audience was unaware of the advancement of genome sequencing technology is predictable, given that most do not work in the field of genomics.
The increased affordability and accessibility of genome sequencing brings forth new concerns about the implications this technology has on affecting the cultural boundaries of society (as does all new society-integrated pioneer technologies). The most forthcoming positive outcome of this era of tangible order of genome sequence is that it allows for individuals to learn of any negative genetic conditions they may knowingly or unknowingly possess. This can help both for seeking out treatment prior to symptomatic stage of disease progression for people who found out they have a genetic condition through the test. Genomic testing can also benefit couples planning to start a family [with children]. Again whether a genetic condition is known or unknown, parents-to-be will have the power of knowledge of potential health outcomes of their children before pregnancy. What the parents decide to do in terms of family planning is their choice, and this phenomenon further complicates the bioethics field.
part 2/3
DeleteThe increased affordability and accessibility of genome sequencing brings forth new concerns about the implications this technology has on affecting the cultural boundaries of society (as does all new society-integrated pioneer technologies). The most forthcoming positive outcome of this era of tangible order of genome sequence is that it allows for individuals to learn of any negative genetic conditions they may knowingly or unknowingly possess. This can help both for seeking out treatment prior to symptomatic stage of disease progression for people who found out they have a genetic condition through the test. Genomic testing can also benefit couples planning to start a family [with children]. Again whether a genetic condition is known or unknown, parents-to-be will have the power of knowledge of potential health outcomes of their children before pregnancy. What the parents decide to do in terms of family planning is their choice, and this phenomenon further complicates the bioethics field.
This video is very informative and easy to understand. I really liked how Richard Resnick put genetic testing into perspective for the viewers. When we learn about genetic testing in class we see numbers and words on a page. What Resnick does well is he gives the numbers meaning. For example, when he says there are 3 billion genes in the human body he shows a screen with tiny colored pixels and said the we would need three of those screens to see the equivalent 3 billion genes in the human body. Additionally, he tells stories about how genetic testing is beneficial – it helps determine if someone has genes that cause them to be more likely to develop disease or not. As the price of the genetic test decreases due to the increases in technology development, there is no doubt that more and more people will want to test their genes. I believe that it is beneficial for research in disease prevention, management, and treatment. However, I do not think that everyone should get genetically tested. Yes, it is useful for individuals who are predisposed to diseases in terms of prevention. But, if genetic testing is used to gain an advantage over someone else, it begins to cross the line. If everyone were required to release their genetic information, there is a chance where that genetic information could be used as reasons against the individual. If one person has the genetic sequence determining they are likely to develop cancer, jobs could potentially use that as reason not to hire them. Therefore, eventually gene testing could be used for discrimination, just as age and gender has been used.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the way that Resnick presented genetic testing. As a student, the phrase is overwhelming and confusing. I also believe that genetic testing should not be done on everyone. Such testing can be more detrimental that helpful. You bring up an interesting idea about discrimination: will genes be another cause of social injustice?
DeleteMy initial response to the video is how fascinating this is. This is really big for the health care field, disease management, and disease prevention. The fact that genome sequencing is becoming cheaper to do is also really big. This signifies that it will become more incorporated into our lives in the very near future. It may become a normal part of newborn screening or an option for patients getting a check up from one’s PCP. It is becoming increasingly important to shift from tertiary care to preventative/primary care for the betterment of health. Genome sequencing could be one of the tools that helps do that. Resnick mentioned a woman who had breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and leukemia. After a doctor sequenced her genome, he found a deleterious sequence, which was causing her cancers. After finding that sequence, her family was then able to get tested for the same sequence in order to begin the necessary steps to prevention if necessary. These are definitely positive effects of the tipping point that Resnick mentioned: the overall advancement of the health of the population. However, responsibility comes with the advancement of the health of the population. The better one’s health is, the longer one lives. Our earth is already overpopulated, and as Resnick mentioned, we have to feed our population. This could lead to problems later, such as food shortages. In addition, the question of “how far is too far?” comes into play. Resnick mentioned things like testing your partner for the “cheating gene” or testing the president, etc. While the genomic revolution will be a beneficial milestone, it will also be important to treat it as a serious responsibility, so that it doesn’t get out of hand.
ReplyDeleteI found this video extremely interesting. With the recent popularity in expecting mothers getting the DNA of the child tested for mutations and etc. I was surprised to see that even later in life genetic testing can answer so many questions about a person’s health condition. One part of this presentation I found especially interesting were the twins who were thought to have cerebral palsy, without the genetic testing they might have not been effectively treated which could have been detrimental to their health, ability to function, and quality of life.
ReplyDeleteFor a health professional this tool can be very helpful. By looking at a person’s genome a doctor could foresee potential health problems for the patient or offspring. While clearly beneficial I believe that being able to obtain an individuals genetic code should be left to medical professionals. Giving individuals the ability to read and interpret their own genetic code could lead to people misinterpreting their future health outcomes or it could become some sort of fortune-teller about who they are most compatible for or likely actions like the “cheating gene.”
During the actual talk, I found myself surprised at all the information Richard Resnick was presenting, and it is not until I was ready to write this post that I let myself think about what that information meant. See in theory, the Genomic Revolution will be extremely beneficial to our advancement in research and our place in the medical field, just by being able to understand how and why our bodies work the way they do. However a lot of my classmates have pointed out that the incentive for us to define which genes in our bodies are to be considered "superior" and "inferior" makes us think that we are entitled to not just labeling, but changing our genes completely, and perhaps creating the "perfect" genome that we've dreamed of. That can translate itself to an indestructible immune system (what would happen to pharmaceutical companies then), what we consider perfect aesthetic standards (imagine a time where it's perfectly acceptable to choose your child's eye and hair color), or both. Of course, the medical discoveries and preventative measures are very much worth the downfalls this revolution will bring about, but as a classmate said in her post, our values will change. After all, the our genomic differences are what differentiate us, so I guess my question is, with the publication and possible misuse of this type of information, will we end up helping those with genes known to be harmful to us or will we work harder to keep alive the people who have the genes we like and want to save?
ReplyDeleteI agree, creating the perfect genome could be a major negative side effect to the genomic revolution. I have studied about "designer babies" in other classes and it is alarming that that future is so near and accessible. Will genetic variation completely disappear after a number of years? What will happen to natural selection and the concept of fitness when we begin to alter people to have only ideal genes? As Zeinah said though, the medical benefits outweigh these risks. With careful regulation of genome sequencing, we can make sure the technology is only used for medical purposes, not recreational. If Resnick is correct in how fast the technology is progressing, the scientific community needs to make their concerns known now about negative side effects rather than later so humanity can be better prepared to handle them.
DeleteAfter watching this TedTalk, I realized how far the medical world and technology has advanced recently along with the power that doctors and other health professionals have today. The capabilities of researchers and doctors have officially gone beyond what I thought was possible. If whole human genome sequencing allows for the identification of specific series of mutations in a gene, doctors could prescribe medicine according to that gene and essentially extend the lives of humans today. Say one family member has a certain type of cancer, genome sequencing can allow for other family members to get screened for that specific mutation with the hopes of detecting cancer early if it is present in their body. I think this early detection is extremely significant and life-altering. This video was very eye-opening in my opinion. However, there are some things to consider with this enormous breakthrough in knowledge and technology. Resnick mentioned the eventual “tipping point” where whole-genome sequencing is cheap enough for nearly everyone in the US to afford. “Using the genome as a universal diagnostic is here today,” claims Resnick. This “universal diagnostic” has obvious benefits to society: it could allow for equal opportunity for all to get genetically tested, enable prevention strategies and efforts due to early notice of disease or disability, and prolong life to individuals while strengthening family bonds. On the contrary, whole-genome sequencing could negatively effect society. People may fear the results discovered through sequencing and find out information they wouldn’t have necessarily wanted to know about themselves a that point in time. Those who are not diagnosed with mutations may feel superior to another who is, which could constitute problems. The depth that genetic sequencing could reach could potentially be very detrimental to society and interfere with lives rather than possibly prevent disease. I like how Resnick ended the talk with “it is in humanities hands to wield it for the better man of man kind, or not.” It entirely is up to humanity to determine the extent of this new change in civilization.
ReplyDeleteWhile Resnick's talk was very interesting, I feel as though there are many implications and issues that come along with ubiquitous genetic testing that were not touched upon. He turned the issue completely onto the positive end to only shed light on the beneficial and groundbreaking science. While these advances are exciting and are not to be discounted, there are social issues that must be discussed with these advances.
ReplyDeleteWe still have a limited understanding, in many cases, of how these base pair mutations directly affect many diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's or Huntington's. Many markers of these diseases can only give a person their chance of developing the disease, whereas people may think their death is imminent. When sequencing does become so easy and cheap, there are many who will take advantage of the technology and misinterpret their results, for instance Resnick’s mention of the “cheating gene”.
Medically speaking, there are an astonishing number of benefits and exact diagnoses and treatments resulting from genetic testing. However, privacy issues and ethical issues arise when asking a patient if they want a genetic test, and who that information gets shared with. If that information becomes part of their medical record, does that mean that it is fair game for insurers or employers to use against them?
As with many scientific advances, gene sequencing is becoming more accessible whether society is ready for its implications or not.
Resnick presents the progress already made in the genomic revolution and the predicted future in an optimistic and accessible manner. I found myself being hopeful about the future of disease recognition and prevention after watching him speak. It is no question whether the genomic revolution will change the scientific community and how we treat disease, but how much will it alter the daily lives of an average person? Resnick talks about how the technology is getting cheaper and cheaper, down to $100 for a genetic test in just a few years. He explains how easy it will be for someone to order a genetic test and see their whole DNA sequence, a tipping point of the genome sequencing process. However, I do not see a time in the near future when this technology is not heavily regulated. While it will be cheap and easy, this is a completely new phenomenon for mankind. In regards to its use on humans, I believe it will be more than a few years before this technology is readily available for anyone to use. It will be controlled by laws and regulations, and there would be a complex transition of integrating it into health insurance plans.
ReplyDeleteLike Resnick talked about, there are some major medical benefits. If someone dies from a cancer due to a genetic mutation, her family members can use genetic testing to see if they have the same genetic mutation and a heightened risk for cancer. We can better diagnose disease based on genetic sequence and not just symptoms. Researchers will be able to better identify certain diseases by recognizing identical sequences in people. There are also positive effects going beyond humans. Resnick mentioned that genome sequencing could be used to grow resistant food crops in order to sustain our growing population. Naturally, there will be a backlash to this use because peoples’ opposition to genetically modified food.
It could be dangerous to rely too heavily on this system when it becomes so accessible. It will be easy to use against politicians and well-known figures if their DNA sequence is on the table. However, as I mentioned above, there will be so many regulations when it comes to sequencing and they will most likely involve privacy – who is able to view a person’s sequence, and what purposes will they use it for. Even so, it is important for us to anticipate the tipping point so we will be better prepared to handle the negative effects.
I thought it was amazing when Resnick started to explain that the price of sequencing a base has fallen one hundred million times in just a decade. I don’t know all of the gritty details that go into genome sequencing (yet!), however the fact that it is so cheap and easy to do made me wonder - how long will it be before everyone’s doing it? Preventive medicine is what public health is all about, but in what ways will this hurt or help our society?
ReplyDeleteI think that there will be both positive and negative social effects when the “tipping point” arrives. Firstly, if everyone is able to get sequenced, they will then be able to determine their future health and possibly even the future health of their offspring. On the other hand, people might think that the ability to get sequenced so easily is an assault on the natural life process and think that if everyone knows their genomic sequence then that will unnecessarily turn our population into hypochondriacal society. Looking towards research effects, however, I think that only positive effects will come out of this tipping point, seeing as if everyone is able to get sequenced then researchers will have a lot more to work with, to study and to learn from.
Initially, my reaction to Resnick’s Ted talk about the Human Genome Project was a mixture of excitement and uncertainty. His statements about the sequencing of the genome overwhelmed me, as it took a few years to sequence three billion bases in the genome. In a few years, something that was known as obscure and mysterious, known as a gene, was synthesized so that medicine and human society could be changed in the future. In terms of medicine, the results of the Human Genome Project excite me. Being able to see which genes are missing in order to predict a possibility of cancer in a patient is astounding. Diagnosing will be easier because physicians can assess a patient’s gene sequence in addition to symptoms, which can be complex.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I feel uneasy about genetic information getting into the wrong hands, the social consequences of knowing one’s full genome, and the dehumanization of looking into one’s genes instead of who he is as a person. I certainly do not think the genome should be accessible on an iPhone or to the public. Resnick’s idea of the “cheating” gene is just one example of the social consequences of obtaining full genetic information.
In conclusion, I believe that genome sequencing can be helpful in medicine for diagnosing, testing, and fully understanding what is going on in a patient’s body. However, society needs to be careful which such information as it could be detrimental to personal relationships and the quality of life. Resnick’s talk proves that knowledge is indeed power.
After watching this video I was shocked by how far technology has come in terms of genetic sequencing, and this made me realize that those who are not directly involved with the field of genomics can be very uneducated as to the advancements that have been made and the implications it will have. When the point in time comes that whole-genome sequencing is readily available to everyone, there will be a lot to consider as far as positive and negative social consequences. The most interesting part about this, however, is that it is entirely up to society to determine in what way this information is used. In the video Resnick mentioned a case where a cancer patients genome was sequence and a deletion was identified that indicated a 90% chance of developing cancer; crucial information for her family to be aware of and to make sure they get screened often. A little boy’s life was also drastically changed in just nine months after his doctor sequenced his genome and figured out what was wrong with him to in turn provide proper treatment. These are tremendously positive social consequences that in the future can become the norm rather than rare patients with doctors who have backgrounds in genomics. On the flip side, like Resnick mentioned, allowing the public to have access to so much genetic information presents the chance of it becoming a consumer phenomenon, and it could be used in frivolous or malicious ways. Putting regulations into place to stop this from happening and educating the general public about genomic sequencing and what different mutations could mean for them is in my opinion the best way to ensure that these scientific advancements have mostly positive consequences. The genomic revolution is a way for doctors and researchers to cure more diseases, educate the public on their individual risks, and help our society start to focus on primary prevention, rather than trying to fix the problem when it is already too late. With the right education and outreach programs these advances in genome sequencing technology and accessibility will have tremendous positive outcomes for our society.
ReplyDeleteI was also very shocked by how far technology has come. Personally, I did not consider how many people are uneducated about genetic sequencing. I agree that the stories that Resnick discussed were all positive outcomes in regards to genetic testing. I found that there were many positive con sequencing that could come from the advancement in genetic testing. However, I did not consider the impact that educating the general public could have.
DeleteRichard Resnick’s “Welcome to the genomic revolution” has left me both in awe of the wonders of science and the extent of human capabilities but also fearful of this same power. When listening to the cases of the first female cancer patient, the Beery twins, and “little Nick”, I thought them all to be intriguing cases and fully supported the idea of using the human genome as a universal diagnostic to potentially extend life an extra 5, 10, or 20 years. However, as Resnick began talking about “humanity’s footprint” on the planet and how consumer application for genomics exists and seems to already be getting out of hand, I began feeling uneasy and skeptical about the direction genome sequencing is taking.
ReplyDeleteThis brings me to the ‘tipping point’ where on a social level, we are already experiencing capitalism applied to the genome project when we see “DNA sequencing on the iPhone”, tests to find out if you are genetically compatible with your significant other, and even the personalized “genomic massages”. I find these inventions both comical and frustrating since I feel it is taking away from the original goal and wonder behind genomic sequencing. Rather then potentially curing and extending the lives of those who are ill, greed and consumerism is leading people astray from the true benefits of the genomic revolution. Furthermore, regardless of how readily available the human genome is becoming, I believe that this, just like medical records, should be kept private and should not be divulged to the public. By using your personal genome as a vehicle for personal gain, such as at a job interview, this could snowball into “genomic” segregation where the world would be divided not by your income or race, but by how ‘elite’ your genetic makeup is.
Lastly, Resnick leaves us with a powerful quote, ”Like any new technology, it’s really in humanity’s hands to wield it for the betterment of mankind…or not.” Call me optimistic, but I’m hoping that we stray away from the “or not” portion of this quote and continue to advance the genetic revolution so that more lives are saved and less iPhone apps are made.
I completely agree with your point that having public access to a person's genome could lead to genomic segregation. It would be unethical to allow the use of a person's genetic makeup for or against them. It would be like using a "survival of the fittest" mentality on society. It is best to continue to advance the genetic revolution while keeping the information taken from each individual genome private.
DeleteAfter watching this Ted talk I was shocked and excited for the future of human genomics. However, with every new frontier there are benefits and detriments especially when it comes to technological advancements. The "tipping point" will create many benefits, but could also be detrimental to our society as a whole depending on how people use the information. Positive effects would be that genome sequencing would serve as a preventive measure. More people will be able avoid or catch and treat disease earlier than normal. If people knew they were more susceptible to certain conditions or disease they would be able to modify their lifestyles in order to reduce their risk of developing said disease. However, I think the social implications of gene sequencing might cause new problems to arise. Genes might become stigmatized as either good or bad depending on the social implication. But no matter the eventual outcome, we need progress, so we push forward, for better or for worse, and try to safeguard against negative outcomes and focus on what we can do with the positive outcomes.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely, of course it is exciting to think of the positives when it comes to this type of research. But at the same time you never know how people are going to use certain information. I do like the positive attitude as I too hope we can use this information to prevent disease and find out more about what causes genetic issues in the future.
DeleteSamantha,
DeleteI completely agree with your concerns regarding the possible stigma and discrimination that could arise as a result of this development. It truly is a scary to think that one day our genetic information could be available to the masses. But as you stated, we must push forward for the possibility of increasing the life expectancy of populations around the world. This could be a very similar case to the rise of the internet. We now live in a world that was feared by the previous generations yet think very little of the negative effects of the internet. We may similarly reach a point where we become accustomed to the idea that genetic information is fully accessible by the masses.
Samantha, how effective do you think we'll be able to avoid diseases that we have a precondition for if it involves making lifestyle changes? For instance, there are people who suffer from high cholesterol and are in a state of obesity, but instead of implementing a daily workout plan and dieting, they may choose to take a pill to help them combat their condition even if it causes some harm to their liver.
DeleteIt’s incredible to realize that the unthinkable, futuristic ideas that authors used to write about are actually coming true and I think that’s an incredible indication of how far our minds are able to take us. There are so many amazing things that we could accomplish with the knowledge and technology that we now have—imagine being able to see your entire genome and scour it for sequences that code for diseases you may or may not develop. I think the “tipping point” that Resnick discusses is quite important, actually, as giving nearly everyone in the US the ability and opportunity to get sequenced will allow them to take action in preventing any impending diseases. Additionally, this would give people the chance to improve their lifestyles and promote the health and wellbeing of themselves and the rest of society. The concept of “baby making” and choosing the genes that will make up a baby’s genome is a fascinating one and one that I often discuss with my friends, and while it could be used to prevent any possible development of diseases, I fear it could also lead to devastating genetic discrimination if utilized by the wrong people.
ReplyDeleteAs a whole, our society is a relatively large hypochondriac (look at the Ebola crisis and the belief that the measles vaccine causes autism) and I think that allowing the US population to be able to search for markers in their DNA could result in chaos and fear, leading to unhealthy obsession, unnecessary treatments, and incorrect diagnoses. Additionally, it would create even greater socioeconomic disparity between the people who are able to afford to get sequenced and the people who cannot. I think giving people the opportunity to get sequenced and prevent future diseases is great and important but I think it’s even more important to consider the consequences of our actions and take steps to prevent anyone from taking advantage of the system. I’m curious as to who would come up with regulations/restrictions for taking action past getting sequenced (i.e. baby making) and how some sort of board in charge of leading genomic revolution in the right direction would be out together to ensure fairness for everyone.
I found this TED talk by Resnick to be extremely informative and thought provoking. It is really amazing just how far we have come in terms of medical and technological advancements. I had no idea just how rapidly genomic technology has been advancing since the Human Genome Project, and it is simultaneously shocking and exciting.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the “tipping point” that Resnick mentions in his presentation could be both beneficial and harmful to the human race. On one hand, as whole-genome sequencing becomes cheaper and more accessible, the effectiveness of screening and diagnostics would increase tremendously. Resnick claims that “everyone in this room could live an extra 5, 10, 20 years” by using the genome as a universal diagnostic. If results like that can be achieved, it truly is a magnificent and revolutionary advancement for the human race. On the other hand, this tipping point could give rise to a new type of discrimination as genetic information becomes available to the masses. Resnick’s examples (cheat gene detection, presidential election, etc.) seem to illustrate the possible shift in our society as we begin to use the genome as a basis on which we judge individuals. Although this definitely does raise some ethical concerns, we must keep in mind that the very idea of the internet era we live in today was feared by the generations that came before us. It may very well be a case in which we become accustomed to the idea as we slowly shift into the new era.
I completely agree with the mention that sequencing genomes will have an astounding effects as a diagnostic and screening tool. As you said, this will tremendously aid in the field of medicine and speed up any diagnostic processes. Furthermore, I agree with the idea that this may bring about a new type of discrimination and that this tool may be a new basis to judge individuals in a harmful way. This will definitely take away from the intimate interaction between people and create divide between people with favorable genetics and people with unfavorable genetics.
DeleteMy first reaction to this talk was the astounding strides we have made in the world of genetics. Considering the human genome project took place less than thirty years ago, the fact that we are now able to sequence the genomes of individuals in such short time frames and for so cheap, in terms of genetics goes, is just impressive from a scientific standpoint. It is exciting when you think about all the possibilities that could arise from new individual gene mapping techniques. We’re talking being able to see all the potential medical issues in a person’s life that arise from genetic issues all in one report. The ability to learn more about genetic diseases is greatly increased when we have more sequences to study. Most would think that this process would be astronomically ill affordable. But as Resnick notes, the day will come when a “tipping point” is reached and nearly all Americans would be able to afford to have their gene sequence mapped. This could affect research in such a positive way as access to every individual’s genome would provide great inside into genetic diseases, inheritance and other genetics related issues. However from a social aspect, I feel like there are more negatives. For starters I don’t know how I would feel about knowing I had a recessive disease. I think it would cause a lot of people to stop living their lives to the fullest if they would be able to tell almost exactly what dormant genes are waiting in the wings. It is also scary to think that if we knew all of our genes and everything about ourselves in terms of what we would pass on to the next generation we could essentially customize children in the future. It is apparent that knowing more about the gene pool and being able to study a more varied set of gene combinations has great upside for the healthcare field. But despite these positives, I do feel like we could potentially be treading on the thin ice between knowledge and nature. Natural selection is what keeps our planet diverse and thriving, and the exploration and daily use of genetic information could threaten that process and in turn our planet. It is really in our hands though, how we use genetic in the future could either have longstanding positive effects on the health of people, or it could destroy us. Hopefully we choose the first option.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching Richard Resnick’s Ted Talk it is hard to determine whether genetic sequencing is completely beneficial. My initial reaction towards this technology was that it could completely change the way our health care system works. With the addition of genetic sequencing, individuals would be able to determine if they are predisposed for a certain disease. Resnick gave an example of an individual who became diagnosed with breast cancer. After receiving years of treatment and having her cancer metastasize to many regions of her body, she eventually underwent respiratory failure and died. If this patient had undergone genetic sequencing early in her lifetime she would have been able to determine that she had a greater chance of becoming diagnosed with this disease. In these cases individuals could then seek out extra cancer screening and other secondary prevention techniques in order to get earlier cancer diagnosis and obtain a greater chance of life saving treatment. This type of technology not only would increase the chance of survival for patients who become diagnosed with treatable diseases, but it would also change the health care system and the immense costs that are spent each year. The US currently spends around 2.8 trillion dollars on health care cost in just one year. Prevention techniques typically are more cost effective then long duration treatment plans that are not always successful. With the addition of genetic sequencing, health care costs would shift to prevention strategies and decrease the economic burden of high cost therapies.
ReplyDeleteAlthough genetic sequencing has many beneficial attributes, my worry is that it will become abused by the employment industry. As seen with Resnick’s application for life insurance, discrimination based on one’s genetic sequence as well as the ability to hide ones results can negatively impact individuals chances of receiving important life needs and jobs. Individuals who deny access to their sequence or individuals who have greater chances of being diagnosed with diseases are going to have a harder time becoming employed and therefore unemployment and poverty rates are going to rise. Although I think genetic sequencing can be extremely advantageous in the medical community, I think it will cause detrimental effects if employers make it mandatory for potential employees to become tested.
Initially after viewing this Ted Talk, I felt somewhat ignorant having never considered the negative consequences of having full access to individuals’ genomes. I personally have only been exposed to arguments which have promoted its uses and benefits, but not the contrary. I do believe that the benefits will outweigh the possibility of bias and prejudice. Having the ability to drastically prolong lives and improve the quality of life to the extent which eradication of certain diseases would, I feel far outweighs the cons presented by it. Naturally, I can understand how this “tipping point” may lead to prejudice if this information may be accessed freely by anyone, but we can choose to implement measures of confidentiality to protect this. I think to an analogy of social media. On Facebook we are able to connect with thousands, spread our ideas or beliefs, meet friends and interact with others in a way which we never imagined 20 years ago. This is undeniably great, yet without privacy settings turned on, strangers and others are able to judge our looks, comments, thoughts and beliefs. So in regard to genomic sequence testing, proper steps must be taken to ensure adequate confidentiality. If this is done properly, these issues of prejudice and genetic bias will not be able to trump the obvious benefits of genomic testing.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that we need to ensure adequate confidentiality with genome sequencing. When you brought up how strangers are able to look through our Facebook profiles when our privacy settings are not set to stop them, I began thinking about how people can actually get around privacy settings through hacking and access our private information. Even if we put up massive amounts of code to block access to genomic sequences, who is to say that it will definitely keep hackers out of that sensitive information. Will this lead to a whole different branch of information warfare? Will the costs still outweigh the benefits in that situation? Perhaps I am just getting ahead of myself?
DeleteI believe that the genomic revolution is a significant importance. It almost has become an inevitable progression as science has progressed at a substantial rate. This progression is initially astounding, and I was amazed at what Resnick was saying with regards to that development. As scientific discoveries advance it with it will come cheaper technologies and methods. I liked that eventually, in the proximate future, getting your genome sequence would be an affordable practice for the vast majority of the population. It would be amazing if one could know his or hers genetic information for the meager price of $100. With this advance in technology it is understandable that it will become a universal diagnostic. What I also found interesting was Resnick’s stance towards GM foods, of course this advance in food production will have great positive implications worldwide, but it comes with a huge amount of controversy and negative side effects that he seems to not want to discuss.
ReplyDeleteThis “tipping point” that Resnick mentions will certainly have positive and negative effects. These innovations will create a mass of direct to consumer and low cost Internet genetic services that will hold a huge amount of genetic information. Concerns with regards to genetic discrimination could occur within employment and health insurance. Along with this potential downfall, Resnick also talks about the “so-called cheating gene” to see if you are genetically compatible with another person to produce “desirable” offspring. Humans will also be able to live longer as they would screen for genetic diseases and be able to help prevent them or treat them earlier and before symptomatic features are seen, such as taking preventive measures and changing one’s environment. This longer life span that would be seen would cause an additional strain on resources such as food, space and fuel, creating further problems that we would need to address.
As I mentioned earlier, this longer life span and strain on resources could be seen as a potential negative. But an unquestionable positive is that we would be able to use genetic testing as a preventive measure to screen for disease. Lifestyles of certain people could be adapted or changed in order to inhibit the onset or degree to which the disease prevails. Self-management of health care would occur, it would save a huge amount of money as people would not require needless check-ups or vice versa they would go to their doctors if a problem is screened for.
Personally, my concern for discussion is how investors within this industry will be able to protect genetically both on a national and international scale. Many people will be at risk of genetic discrimination and with the limitations and little protection that ambiances this practice, many people could be vulnerable.
Resnick’s discussion about how far genetic testing has come really shows how this field of science is growing and changing every day. In such a short amount of time, the human genome became more understood, and sequencing the genome has become easier and cheaper. Resnick focuses on showing how the advancements in this research are very beneficial. This research gives a better understanding of a person’s genetic makeup, and can eventually help us explain how and why certain diseases and conditions occur. Genome sequencing can allow a person to know what conditions they are genetically predisposed for, such as certain cancers, and allows doctors to know what diseases their patient should be more thoroughly screened for. This can allow for preventative measures to be taken. However, there are some negatives to a person having this knowledge. Knowing one has a greater chance of developing a disease may create unnecessary anxiety, because their risk is heightened. Having a heightened risk does not mean that the disease will develop, and some may decide to go to extreme and unnecessary measures to prevent a disease they may never actually have.
ReplyDeleteI was very intrigued by the progress we made in genome sequencing and I thought Resnick did a very good job at presenting the subject. However, I think his presentation took an unpleasant turn when he mentioned a candidate of the future using his/her genetic information as a way of rallying support. You mentioned that knowing how susceptible a person is to a disease may cause unnecessary anxiety to that person, but the other side of that argument is that this newly acquired information may also cause unnecessary anxiety for others such as an employer, insurance company, etc. This may hinder that person's chance of working a certain job or getting affordable insurance. All in all, I feel that this advancement is a big step forward towards longer and healthier lives because not only can doctors, patients, and researchers use this info to prevent the development of diseases, they can also use this information to potentially change the lives of those already affected by diseases.
DeleteI was instantly intrigued with the Human Genome Project as soon as Richard Resnick started speaking about it. I was pretty surprised to find out how far this field has come in the last decade. To highlight how far it has come, Resnick displayed graphically how much cheaper it is becoming and eventually anyone could have their genomes sequenced.
ReplyDeleteWith the “tipping point” being that everyone will be able to get sequenced, the effects of doing so will be both positive and negative. A positive effect will be the awareness of mutations in peoples’ genomes. This service will allow quick response time to act on whatever disease or condition they have a high chance of developing. Another positive effect might be to see how compatible one person is to another. This would give them support that they are genetically perfect for one another.
A negative effect might be that using genome sequences might cause segregation among the population. People free of disease or people who have a low risk of developing a disease or condition might separate themselves from people who can/will develop diseases.
Also, another negative effect might be that the sequencing might some sort of selector tool to eliminate people from jobs or any sort of applications or being matched up with a mate. This might take away the emotional connection among people. The interactions between them might only be based on genomes and not on personalities.
All in all, I think the genome project has a plethora to offer society with food production and disease surveillance. If it can be governed to where it will not be abused to the point that it will be the only tool to interact with people then it will be only adding to society in a positive manner.
I really like your first idea for potential negatives, if this technology becomes as widespread as Resnick foresees I think segregation against the "genetically inferior" could be a very serious issue. Though it would be a very interesting dynamic, not based on outward appearance but confined to job applications as you state.
DeleteGreat post!
At first I was impressed by how far we’ve gone in terms of the genomic revolution. To think that something used to cost $4 Billion and took 15 years to accomplish now only costs $10,000 and takes much less than a year to do is nearly something out of a science fiction novel. While there are many positive benefits to the genomic revolution, like pin-pointing the cause of diseases and being able to connect yourself to long lost relatives, human ambition won't necessarily stop there.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that technology is able to rapidly evolve can be a scary thought at times. Resnick mentions the increase in life expectancy and brings up the difficulties of maintaining a large population, specifically in regards to food production, which could arguably be feasible with genetically modified foods but then you run into the difficulties of finding enough space for people that is fit for living. With the overpopulation alone, the current socio-economic gaps between the different classes would only increase. If you also take into account new knowledge about the human genome, someone could easily imagine a futuristic society that discriminates based on genetic perfection/mutations (or write a novel that becomes a Hollywood hit). In the end one would have to argue what is feasible in the long run for the overall survival of the human race.
Scientific advancement may often bring positive effects to the lives of humans, but is there a point where we should stop?
I agree with your second paragraph and the last question. Our population as a whole has spent centuries trying to create unity among the differences in individuals and groups of people. The last thing we truly need is another degree of separation which causes people to feel better or worse off than others.
DeleteMy first reaction to this video was skepticism. I wanted to hear more about how technology is changing in the field of genomics and why Resnick has such an optimistic view of the cost of genome sequencing. However, I felt that the stories he used were very relevant examples of why genome sequencing is needed and successfully made the message that genome sequencing should be invested in. I can see how genomic technology could be a huge step for improving the health of the human population. This would in turn also reduce the amount of costly surgeries and other health care needs because we could be catching cancers earlier on. I was starting to feel a little weary when he talked about how genomes could be used to choose the next president and a person’s romantic interest. If we are not careful about managing this surge of very sensitive information about our genomes, we may end up being forced to choose presidents and romantic interests through genomes because it will become the societal norm to do so. I feel that this shares similarities with how the everyone’s online information is being used so that individuals are able to see ads on facebook that apply to their own interests. A couple decades ago we probably would have thought this infringed on our private information and would have been against it, just like most people currently would feel uncomfortable choosing a president based on genomes. However, it has now become the norm to allow the internet to use our online information and show us these ads that are specialized to us. I am not claiming that it is inevitable that using genomic technology for choosing presidents and romantic interests will become a normal practice. I wish to simply say that if use of genomic technology does happen to escalate exponentially like Resnick claims, we should also be discussing the ethical future issues like the ones that Resnick brings up. The line between being beneficial and being ethically questionable could be very thin. My additional question besides how genomic technology has been progressing is what are the current regulations for genome sequences in the generally population? Are people actually allowed to take a swab of their husband’s saliva and get their genome sequenced?
ReplyDeleteRenee,
DeleteI really like your statement of "the line between being beneficial and being ethically questionable could be very thin". I completely agree with you. There is no way to trust that our society will only use genomic technology as means for better health and medical research, and hope only goes so far. If Resnick's belief that this genomic revolution will grow incredibly, we have to seriously evaluate the repercussions that could take place with this technology. In order to do so, maybe there should be proper regulation that takes place in the future if our society decides to make genetic testing a more normal practice.
Resnick’s presentation did a great job of capturing the positive and probable negative effects of the genomic revolution. With the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, the progress and influence that genetic testing has done for the world of medical research and health is incredible. My initial reaction to the presentation was filled with awe. The examples that Resnick used to prove how much genetic testing has improved the health of others makes me inclined to really encourage the progression of genetic testing. However, Resnick does make the possible negative effects of genetic testing in our society. Sadly, not everyone in the world sees genetic testing solely for the betterment of health; others may use genetic testing for economic profit. I believe that the social and research effects of this “tipping point” will be a double-edged sword in our society, presenting both beneficial and negative effects. Resnick’s examples of DNA sequencing apps and custom genome massages are not ludicrous ideas, being that almost everything in our society is used for profit. Also, his example of genome access with the presidential campaign example is another downside to genetic testing. These examples may come into fruition if the “tipping point” that Resnick describes occurs. The ideas of “chromosomally LinkedIn” and being able to expand the genome database are positive possibilities. Resnick closes the presentation with a wonderful statement about the direction of genomic testing being put into humanity’s hands. It really is up to us as a society to use the genomic revolution as means to better our society, rather than diminish it.
ReplyDeleteMy initial reaction to this was that of intrigue because I was unaware of all the potential that the human genome holds. It is amazing that you can discover so many aspects of a person based solely on their DNA. I personally think it is great that the cost of human genome sequencing is becoming more and more affordable both monetarily and economically. Regarding the "tipping point" where genome sequencing may be readily available to the population, there are both positive and negative consequences. For a positive note, scientists and medical doctors will be able to work together in preventing many of the illnesses and diseases that plague our population today. I feel there will be a shift from current medical care towards preventative medicine because we will have much more knowledge about patients before the actual onset of the illness. But there is also a possible negative side to this situation. When each individual in a population knows their genetic makeup, it might cause some to feel superior and others to feel inferior. This could, in turn, could a rift and create a divide in the population. I believe that the last thing we need is another degree of separation that could allow segregation.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I was hyped watching the video, until the part about being "chromosomally linkedin" and and polititians using genome sequencing against each other. It all became a little worrisome. It would likely add another opportunity for prejudism, which we do not need.
DeleteMy initial response to this video is that genetic testing and this genomic revolution can greatly change our lives for the better. However, when the speaker talked about using genetic information to determine one’s eligibility in the second half of the video, it reminded me of a clip shown in a previous class. It was the beginning of the movie “Gattaca” which focused on genetic testing and the consequences of being “genetically imperfect”. The main character was conceived by chance and did not go under any prenatal genetic testing. It turns out he had a 99% of developing heart disease and as a result, he was restricted by his employer to lower level jobs like being a janitor. I feel that this is a very probable consequence of mass genetic testing. I feel like just because a person has the potential of getting sick, that shouldn’t be the determining factor for that person’s future. However, there are positive consequences to mass genetic testing that cannot be overlooked. If genetic testing can give a person insight to what they are most susceptible to, they can start early to prevent the development of the disease. This will, with no doubt, save many lives. I believe that before any genetic sequencing services become widely available, a set of rules and regulations need to be in place to prevent discrimination based on DNA.
ReplyDeleteResnick’s TedTalk on the genomic revolution was fascinating. Because of the reduced technological and resource expenses, a human genome is now cheaper and faster to process than it has ever been before. As the video ended, I wondered of the applications that this technology could have on our public health. Genome sequencing could be used for greater focus on preventing disease and help inform how to treat disease. An individual’s sequenced genome could help rule out genetic factors for a disease and help direct healthcare professionals to look into environmental conditions relevant to the disease.
ReplyDeleteWhile the potential for greatness is huge with our advancing technology, Resnick makes sure to temper his audiences excitement in the applications of genome sequencing. While Resnick’s examples seem exaggerated – such as his example about testing your romantic partner to test for the presence/activation of the “cheating” gene – he challenges us to think of the myriad of ways this technology could change our society.
Personally, as a future health care professional, I think the lowered cost of sequencing a genome will change our health care system. Too often we rely on the medical model of treating disease once an individual is already sick. By promoting scientific understanding of the human genome and encouraging genome sequencing for at risk groups and individuals, we can develop a stronger focus on the prevention part of disease. Instead of focusing on treating disease, we can use knowledge of genetic predispositions and weaknesses to inform our everyday lifestyle and behavior. This technology could also drive health care costs down – less money would be spent on treating disease and more money could be spent on further medical research or funneled into public health initiatives to promote healthy behaviors.
Despite the mostly positive effects of the genomic revolution, Resnick is correct to think of potential negative ramifications. Insurance companies already ask if an individual has ever had their genomes sequenced. Health insurance companies may use any potential genetic predispositions or mutations as reasons to deny insurance or to raise premiums. The issues of privacy and autonomy also come up. For example, after a genome sequencing, who gets to keep the individual’s biomaterial? Where does that data go? Who should have access to that data? If companies get access to that data, could they not use it to inform how they market their products and who they market their products to? Could a physician mandate that an individual get their genome sequenced? Could the government do that? These issues will continue to be relevant as we improve our biotechnology and learn more from the data our genome provides us.
This video sparked a great deal of excitement for me, in terms of the future of healthcare benefits and all of the other potential benefits cheap genome sequencing presents. Mr. Resnick presents a very optimistic view of the future of healthcare, with the star being efficient and inexpensive human genome sequencing that is easily accessible for the entire population. It was very shocking to me to see how far the sequencing movement has come since the billion dollar initial sequence. Resnick refers to this era as the “tipping point” in genome sequencing technology, because in the near future sequencing will be very much affordable for the population as a whole. I think the benefits in this scenario outweigh the potential negatives. While there will always be the moral and religious push back, I firmly believe that if someone has the opportunity to save a life, any action taken to do so should be taken. Socially, the assimilation of this technology to the public will not only inspire a new generation of scientific minding youth, but also increases the likely innovation of the technology. I believe the more people we have using this kind of technology, it will only become more efficient and inexpensive.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the major negatives to the entire movement? I wish he had made a counter-argument.
ReplyDeleteI have collect much information on it keep posting here.
Click Here : 2006 Cat 140H (616) w/10365 Hrs For Sale at $98k
ReplyDeleteThanks for publishing this details. I simply wish to let you know that I just look into your site and also I locate it really fascinating and useful.
Click Here : 2006 Cat 140H (616) w/10365 Hrs For Sale at $98k