Re: DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored
Major Variola (ret.) wrote: Slashdot pointed to this story of a man indicted via his *relative's* DNA sample: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/3044282.stm But an interesting, unmentioned issue is this: in population DNA surveys you find that a lot of purported fathers *aren't*. So the possibility of indicting a cuckolded man on the basis of nominal (only) relatives is quite real. Only he was convicted because he confessed. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit. - Robert Woodruff
Re: DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Interesting, thanks. Even a brother's daughter could be refused. The BRCA genes are only transmitted through the mother, but there are many others that go through both lines. Ethical issues have surfaced around the desire of the subject's Perhaps this is the basis for the social stigma of mentally ill relatives --it says something (probabilistic) about the speaker. With most genes there is not a 100% chance that any one person will suffer, although there are few. One measurement is the PPV, Positive Predictive Value, which gets to estimate the probability that the problem gene will actually cause the problem. Trouble is, it's real hard to get the PPV right. No one really knows how to do it, so the insurance companies just say to any possibility, no matter how remote. Still, you'll find out when they end up in the hospital. Its useful knowledge to know your genes ---I know adopted people who regret not having any clue. I know that my prostate will explode when I get older. I'd like to know more. Sticking your head in the sand is rarely helpful. While I agree completely, you might be surprised at just how many people don't want to know and will get upset if you spoil the surprise by telling them. In my opinion, very few people understand the impact of human understanding of how life is constructed. The science is well understood, the engineering has just begun. We are taking conscious control of evolution, far past selective breeding and way past clones. Most descendants of germ-cell-fixed diabetes (etc) will probably not regret the tinkering of their ancestors, unless there are unintended side effects :-) Unintended side effects are all but guaranteed :( The tinkering will resemble eugenics at the building block level. Eliminating genetic diseases will be great, but introducing other things might not be, just as eliminating some things might be bad. But yeah, interesting times we live in. I've never heard anyone curse their ancestors for the genetic diseases they've inherited, probably because they wouldn't exist except for the ancestors. (Damn, grandpa, couldn't you have married someone in better health?) Also little good cursing would do. This already happens - selecting your mate has more procedures if youare in line for a spot as king somewhere. Insurance companies are private entities, so IMHO its moral for them to gather intel (eg, checking blood for nicotine metabolites), or give discounts for folks who've had certain inherited diseases fixed in the future. Or eat better, drive safer, exchange fluids less promiscuously, whatever. I have to disagree here. Medical insurance is not the same as life or car insurance. It was all supposed to be a big pool that we would draw on when needed. By skimmimng the cream, infant mortality rates rise, along with a host of other problems. I'm more worried about the State, which coerces with violence. Well, yes, but the corporations are becoming part of their own state... cheers, bob
Re: DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored
At 01:15 PM 7/7/03 -0400, Stormwalker wrote: On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Interesting, thanks. Even a brother's daughter could be refused. The BRCA genes are only transmitted through the mother, but there are many others that go through both lines. Could you explain how this could be? Any gene has a chance of continuing unless its on the father's Y he has only daughters. (Patrilineal surnames behave like this. I believe there's a Cohen-surname related gene set.) (Mitochondrial chromos of course are matrilineal always. For clones they come from the surrogate.) Males can always keep any maternal gene going, even if its not expressed. Unintended side effects are all but guaranteed :( The tinkering will resemble eugenics at the building block level. Eliminating genetic diseases will be great, but introducing other things might not be, just as eliminating some things might be bad. What's wrong with voluntary eugenics? The invention of agriculture started a policy of negative eugenics that culminates with the industrial welfare state paying stupids to breed, while others chose birth control. And banning somatic or germ line fixes to diseases, if you can do them, is as compassionate as banning insulin. Which isn't even a fix, just a workaround. If a germ line fix has an unintended side effect, you either undo it (revert back to being inclined towards diabetes, if this is preferable to the side effect, say) or you debug or patch it. Current historical medicine is filled with such things for mere *temporary* meds that don't cure anything. This nasal spray contains a vector with Service Pack 6 for the germ-line diabetes package installed by your grandfather :-)
Re: DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:51:39AM -0700, Tim May wrote: And if I know I am not engaging in queer sex or IV drug use, why would I pay for AIDS coverage/ You've got to be kidding...
Re: DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored
On Monday 07 July 2003 22:03, Neil Johnson wrote: ... Which makes more sense: Spend $X dollars on some 80 year old's heart/lung transplant so he can live another 10 years, or spend that money on make sure an unwed mother's baby is born healthy? That's easy: spend it on the 80-year-old. He's more likely to vote than the unwed, and likely underage, mother. -- Steve FurlongComputer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all! -- Rep. Henry Waxman
Re: DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 10:15 AM, Stormwalker wrote: On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Insurance companies are private entities, so IMHO its moral for them to gather intel (eg, checking blood for nicotine metabolites), or give discounts for folks who've had certain inherited diseases fixed in the future. Or eat better, drive safer, exchange fluids less promiscuously, whatever. I have to disagree here. Medical insurance is not the same as life or car insurance. It was all supposed to be a big pool that we would draw on when needed. By skimmimng the cream, infant mortality rates rise, along with a host of other problems. No, it was NOT all supposed to be a big pool that we would draw on when needed. You seem to be confusing medical insurance with nationalized social medicine. Do I really need to explain this concept here, to subscribers here? Medical insurance is a risk arbitrage betting scheme just like all other insurance: the actor selling a policy (a contract) is making the bet that he will make more money than he pays out. If he finds out something that alters the expectation of some illness or disease or hazardous activity, then he adjusts the policy premiums accordingly (or even refuses to sell a policy at any price, for understandable reasons). By the way, any scheme to force everyone into the same insurance pool for the same premiums is profoundly antiliberty and is unconstitutional (violates all sorts of rights). Opting out of coverage is always fair. If I know I am not a rock climber, why would I pay for coverage for rock climbing falls? And if I know I am not engaging in queer sex or IV drug use, why would I pay for AIDS coverage/ (There are interesting scenarios for private testing for various genes or proclivities, followed by opting-out for the diseases one is highly unlikely to contract. This kind of not paying for what you don't use is a form of cherry-picking which only a total state could outlaw. Think about it.) --Tim May
