🚀 go-pugleaf

Calgary Rob wrote:

> "Determinator" <siller$to@calcna.ab..ca.> wrote in message
> news:3e1bb0c5.92350795@news.ucalgary.ca...
> > "Calgary Rob" <calgaryrobnospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Nice response dumbass.  I answered your question.  Now you tell us how a
> > >state could do something negative by having a DNA Database.
> >
> > Sell your genetic code to marketeers
> >
> > Decide that you have genetic predispostions to something or other
> >
> >
> > Decide that you are not worthy of Worker's comp because of your
> > DNA (you had a genetic pre-disposition to that kind of injury)
> >
> > Most of the senarious I can think of involve high paying
> > pharmicutical lobbyist paying for an ablerta gentic profile
>
> Still more week arguments.  Seems there really is not that much, except for
> some fairly 'paranoid' thoughts.
>
> --
>
> Calgary Rob
> calgaryrob@shaw.ca
> I like Gravy

My oh my, you say weak arguments, by whose standard yours?  Your responses Rob
are weak.  Perhaps you are simply unaware of your favourite provincial gv'ts
past history of selling personal information to corporations (from the drivers
database). Even when there are laws to protect information laws are very
easily changed by majority governments.

The current state of knowledge about genetics is in its infancy.  We have no
idea what information will eventually be available from DNA information.
Further in the fields of science and prediction what we think we know very
often is much less than what we do know.  Hence the misuse (based on incorrect
information) of information would be nearly a forgone conclusion. Let me give
you two examples of science gone wrong.  In the early part of the 1900's one
of the most prominent in American Psychology honestly believed he could
adequately assess IQ by examining facial features.  He trained people to
assess immigrants IQ by looking at them and in many times sent them packing
based on these assessments.

Much later (1980's) a treatment for Autism was discovered called facilitated
communication the initial proponents of this method reported such startling
results that in at least one State mandated its use.  It has since been
totally debunked and shown to have virtually zero use.

No when someone suggests they will be able to predict learning problems,
intelligence, etc by DNA analysis, run for the hills and hide.  I can pretty
much assure you someone will try and will claim to have some success.  Now the
real truth about science involving humans is that NO research and no
methodology developed from that research is perfect.  Most studies that report
significant effects are statistically based.  Statistical means PROBABILITIES
never ever certainty.  But quite assuredly probabilities will be treated as
certainties.  How many times do you hear people say they have an IQ of say
110, do they ever say that there is a 95% chance there IQ falls between 105
and 115, which is more accurately the truth.  Further the other part of this
is that 1 in 20 times it is completely wrong.

DNA information is potentially far too dangerous to just let out of the bag at
this time.  People will absolutely misuse the information whether for
nefarious purposes, commercial purposes or because they believe they are doing
good (but are wrong).

Sensei Brent