
Google to Collect Data to Define Healthy Human - ismavis
http://online.wsj.com/articles/google-to-collect-data-to-define-healthy-human-1406246214
======
skywhopper
There are a few flaws in the thinking here: One, that we can define a "healthy
human" or that any humans can be found that are operating at full health. Two,
that there is a single set of traits that defines a healthy human, or that it
could be distilled via sampling and synthesizing data about many humans.
Three, that any such indicators or traits they discover will not change over
time.

There is undoubtedly the need for tremendous amounts of research into human
physiology and health, but there's a very naive hubris that runs through all
these grand analysis projects that promise to solve all human health woes. Our
bodies are the most complex systems that we know of in the entire universe.
The idea that we are anywhere close to understanding how they should optimally
work is just completely daft.

Just look back at the promises made by the Human Genome Project in the early
90s. Yes, we've learned a lot since then, but mostly we've learned that the
relationship between our bodies and our genes is far far more complicated than
we imagined 25 years ago.

------
ejain
The limiting factor right now isn't the lack of clever algorithms or
computational power, but the lack of data that covers enough people over
enough time with enough depth and quality. Also, more of former can't make up
for a lack of the latter, even if it's sexier, especially for a company like
Google.

They should consider partnering with these guys:
[http://www.nature.com/news/medicine-gets-up-close-and-
person...](http://www.nature.com/news/medicine-gets-up-close-and-
personal-1.14702..).

~~~
paletoy
An alternative limiting factor could be the lack of great, low cost
,measurement tools. But there are some signs we're getting there, like this[1]
chip based platform that can test for 170,000 proteins on a single test,
cheaply.

Maybe the thing behind this google move is an understanding that it's
possible, in some time feasible for google's projects, to commercialize such
testing platforms, and they want in at the opportunities that will result ?

[1][http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2014/03/led-based-
la...](http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2014/03/led-based-lab-on-a-
chip-device-screens-for-170-000-molecules-in-blood.html)

------
yeukhon
If they can truly protect the anonymity of donator data, I wouldn't mind to be
part of it.

Heck, when I donate my blood I am already giving a lot of information to the
blood center and they know my blood type and can tell if I have certain
diseases of not. When I volunteer to do bone marrow match test, I don't know
how the firm handles my data. I supposed they can protect my data.

I am not worried about Google knowing more about me or humans. I am more
worried about how safe my records are with my clinics and hospitals. See [1]

Lastly, personal question: how do you get into Google X?

[1]: [http://www.scmagazine.com/rhode-island-hospital-to-
pay-150k-...](http://www.scmagazine.com/rhode-island-hospital-to-pay-150k-for-
past-data-breach/article/362725/)

~~~
adrianN
I would be more worried that the results of these studies are not made freely
available to everybody. I prefer having research funded by public money
without seeking a profit.

~~~
yeukhon
What do you mean they are funded by public money? I thought Google is paying a
clinic to get samples and pay researchers to work on the project, but the
researchers have to get approval from the review board of their respective
institution. The review board is funded by public money (more or less) I
guess, but other than that, what else?

~~~
adrianN
As I understand it, the researcher works for Google, so I suppose that his
results belong to Google. Is this not the case?

~~~
yeukhon
> I prefer having research funded by public money without seeking a profit.

Now that I read what you wrote twice I might interpret your original sentence
wrong. I thought you were implying the work they doing with Google is using
public money ("I prefer research funded by public money [done by these
researchers to be non-profit].")

You meant you prefer to have public institutions to carry out the research.

Well, in that case, it's only temporary. There are public and private AIDS
research, but in the end, the public research is used to seek for profit. Say
Google, IBM, Microsoft donates 10B to make this a non-profit research, the end
product (the algorithms, etc) will be used by private companies anyway. So I
don't see how public vs private really matter if the data and results are
going to be publicly known by private company later on for profit.

But if you are going for "pure knowledge", sure, public research would be
ideal :D

------
timothya
This reminds me of something Larry Page said at TED this year:

 _I say, wouldn 't it be amazing if everyone's medical records were available
anonymously to research doctors? And when someone accesses your medical
record, a research doctor, they could see, you could see which doctor accessed
it and why, and you could maybe learn about what conditions you have. I think
if we just did that, we'd save 100,000 lives this year.

So I guess I'm just very worried that with Internet privacy, we're doing the
same thing we're doing with medical records, is we're throwing out the baby
with the bathwater, and we're not really thinking about the tremendous good
that can come from people sharing information with the right people in the
right ways._

Source:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mArrNRWQEso&t=839](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mArrNRWQEso&t=839)
at 14:00.

~~~
jacquesm
I agree with Larry, at the same time google is one of the last companies on
the planet that I would trust with that data.

Much of this internet privacy backlash is aimed specifically at Google and
Facebook (and of course the NSA, but let's assume that they don't have any
problems getting to your medical data anyway).

~~~
jkn
Why is that? The data are anonymized.

But then even if they weren't anonymized, I think Google would be one of the
company I would trust the most for that. They know what they're doing in terms
of security and of all the companies that know a lot about me, they're the one
who consistently delivered great value from the data they have. I'm thinking
of things like search, Google Now and the maps interface for my location
history. Plus I'm happy that the monetization of my data serves to fund great
projects like this one. It didn't have to be so...

~~~
throwaway2048
Even anonimized data that seems very generic and nonspecific, when corolated
with other data points paints a very precise and specific picture of an
individual, including enough to accurately identify them. This is Google's
entire business model.

Health data is very far from this idealized anonimization-friendly case. It is
some of the most specific data avalible about you, and it can easily be abused
to disadvantage you in ways you can do nothing about (insurance, job
prospects, social standing, even as far as getting your life threatened by
people who disagree with things like sexuality and abortion)

Im sure Google appreciates your faith in them. But you should carefully
consider the consequnces. Once the information is out there, there is no
getting it back.

~~~
jkn
You're making a good point with the "there is no getting back". I kind of
trust Google based on their track record but you can never be sure about the
future[1]. But all in all what matters is not whether I can trust them
perfectly, it's that to me the expected benefits are concrete and vastly
outweigh the theoretical risks. I guess I'm in a privileged position such that
I wouldn't even mind having most of these data made public to help with this
kind of research[2]. To me it is more about progressivism vs. conservatism
than about faith in a particular company (though I do worry that one company
might concentrate too much power).

[1] Although Google's direction is arguably more stable than is usual for
publicly traded companies, given the particular share structure designed to
keep control in the hands of the founders.

[2] Mostly, being in generally good health and living in a country where basic
health insurance is guaranteed and good enough, with premiums that don't
depend on your health.

------
thrush
I'm excited to know which diets, exercises and lifestyle define a healthy
human, which I'm hoping this information will give me (assuming the
information will be released).

~~~
bitL
What if there is no such universal thing? What if our DNAs, tRNAs, upbringing
etc. generate a very wide set of health requirements that aren't in sync
between all humans but instead compete with each other? Some people eat bacon
and trans fat every day and live up to 100 years. Some people die in their 30s
on the same diet etc.

Are we going to end up with an average that doesn't fit anyone?

~~~
throwaway2048
A sort of gmail interface redesign problem, but people's lives are on the
line.

Google has shown itself to be driven by metrics to almost the sole exclusion
of anything else, metrics often dont tell you what you think they do.

------
suprgeek
This is very exciting at one level. We need a project like this to accomplish
a "Species" level map of our biology.

Knowing a little bit about how data moves thru the Labs & clinics systems
however, and the widespread tentacles of bad actors like the NSA, this could
be too juicy a prize to ignore. What is to prevent the Feds (for instance)
from knocking on their doors with an NSL for the data based on some trumped up
link?

------
eerpini
anyone remember Gattaca ? well we could end up with data based classification
version of that here !

~~~
walterbell
A more mundane concern is insurance and financial (dis)incentives for behavior
change,
[http://www.salon.com/2014/05/30/in_the_future_insurance_comp...](http://www.salon.com/2014/05/30/in_the_future_insurance_companies_will_make_sure_that_you_exercise/)

"23andMe Is Terrifying, But Not for the Reasons the FDA Thinks",
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6811167](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6811167)

"23andme has suspended health-related genetic tests",
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6859732](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6859732)

"A problem with much statistical analysis is ignoring the fact that humans,
umm, react to things around them. (Social science jargon for this is
reflexivity). I know this seems so simple, but it’s amazing how much
predictive analytics don’t factor this in.",
[https://medium.com/message/learning-from-
natesilver538s-omg-...](https://medium.com/message/learning-from-
natesilver538s-omg-wrong-bra-vs-ger-prediction-9d47fa0611e)

~~~
eerpini
That last link on the shortcomings of most predictions based on statistical
analysis was a great read. Thanks for sharing.

~~~
CMCDragonkai
Are humans deterministic machines, or do they impose their own freewill on to
the environment? Predictions based on statistical analysis probably can't
account for freewill.

~~~
Dylan16807
Statistics can account for free will just as well as they account for other
complex factors, which is poorly, with no ability to say what will happen in
any particular case. There's no need to get metaphysical.

