

DNA sequenced of woman who lived to 115 - sheff
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15278823

======
driverdan
It's great that she donated her body to science instead of letting it go to
waste rotting in the ground.

It's also great that they didn't try to patent her genetics and that they're
being shared with other researchers. This is how it's supposed to be done.

~~~
omarchowdhury
It is a nice thing to do. But even if she didn't, nature would have found some
use for the components in her body.

~~~
cynest
The problem with this is that the benefit to humanity from analyzing the
effects of extreme old age on the human body and investigating the questions
of extreme old-age heritability that super-centenarians raise is much greater
than the benefit from the decomposition of an old lady's biomass.

------
admiun
Just read this on a Dutch newspapers' site. Not sure why the BBC site says her
identity is secret, she is mentioned by name and it even has a picture of her:

(dutch article) [http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2672/Wetenschap-
Gezondheid/ar...](http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2672/Wetenschap-
Gezondheid/article/detail/2969042/2011/10/15/Oudste-Nederlandse-vrouw-had-
bijzondere-genen.dhtml)

~~~
epo
Maybe the BBC writer can't read Dutch? They certainly can't write English
judging by the clunky headline.

------
pjscott
Cool, but an awfully small sample size. The really exciting thing will be when
DNA sequencing is cheap enough that we can sequence thousands, even millions,
of genomes just to see what we can find out.

~~~
orijing
Unfortunately, at least in the current environment, such endeavors would be
shut down by "privacy" advocates.

I was a student at UC Berkeley when we wanted to offer every student a chance
to sequence their genes. However, because of the efforts of the vocal minority
(I certainly wanted to sequence my genes), that was cancelled.

I'm afraid of similar cultural artifacts limiting society's advance. I would
have loved if everyone got sequenced so we'd have tons of meaningful data to
do more genetics research.

~~~
rdouble
Privacy concern for your genome or other medical data is no small matter in
the USA.

I used to work on a research program for electronic medical records. At some
point I realized that virtually no doctor was interested in what I was working
on. However, HMOs and insurance companies had great interest. I came to
conclusion the main application of my work would be to deny insurance to those
with pre-existing conditions.

Sure enough, years later I had to apply for my own insurance and was denied
because I had once been on high blood pressure medication for a month.

Genetic information is worse than a medical record. One can find out they may
be predisposed to Parkinson's disease. There is little a person can do with
this knowledge. However, an insurance company can definitely use it to deny
coverage. It's like a credit rating that can never be repaired.

~~~
orijing
That's true, but if you have full control over who can see your information
(i.e. "I allow it to be anonymized and used for genetics/cancer research in
exchange for information about myself, for myself"), it's not a problem. I
just get frustrated when the will of the vocal few override the welfare of the
silent majority.

~~~
0x12
You really didn't understand the GP I believe. The 'silent majority' are the
people who would suffer from this, they won't benefit. A select few will
profit (vastly) from being able to sell insurance to those who don't need it
and withhold it from those that do.

You having control over your information is a pipe dream, try facebook for
starters and now think 'all my medical information, past, present _and_
future' instead of your friends graph.

Privacy advocates tend to be a bit more educated about these risks than the
general public and maybe know a thing or two about what has already
transpired.

And for the record, you can't anonymize a genome, it _is_ you.

------
rglover
I love how little we know about ourselves.

------
zackattack
Yes but how many children did she have!

