Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Privacy

Go Ahead. Violate My Genetic Privacy. See If I Care!

Ronald Bailey | 1.18.2013 3:05 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

An article in the current issue of Science reports that researchers at the Whitehead Institute in Boston have been able to combine online genetic data from the 1000 Genomes Project with genealogical data available elsewhere on the Internet to identify specific individuals. From the press release:

[Whitehead Fellow Yaniv] Erlich and colleagues began by analyzing unique genetic markers known as short tandem repeats on the Y chromosomes (Y-STRs) of men whose genetic material was collected by the Center for the Study of Human Polymorphisms (CEPH) and whose genomes were sequenced and made publicly available as part of the 1000 Genomes Project. Because the Y chromosome is transmitted from father to son, as are family surnames, there is a strong correlation between surnames and the DNA on the Y chromosome.

Recognizing this correlation, genealogists and genetic genealogy companies have established publicly accessible databases that house Y-STR data by surname. In a process known as "surname inference," the Erlich team was able to discover the family names of the men by submitting their Y-STRs to these databases. With surnames in hand, the team queried other information sources, including Internet record search engines, obituaries, genealogical websites, and public demographic data from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) Human Genetic Cell Repository at New Jersey's Coriell Institute, to identify nearly 50 men and women in the United States who were CEPH participants.

Previous studies have contemplated the possibility of genetic identification by matching the DNA of a single person, assuming the person's DNA were cataloged in two separate databases. This work, however, exploits data between distant paternally-related individuals. As a result, the team notes that the posting of genetic data from a single individual can reveal deep genealogical ties and lead to the identification of a distantly-related person who may have no acquaintance with the person who released that genetic data.

Yawn. Really, what is the big deal? If some portion of the public is spooked over the vacuous concept of "genetic privacy," researchers who listened to the ditherings of certain bioethicists have only themselves to blame. An accompanying policy article in Science does note:

The general expectations of the public about privacy and confidentiality may be subtly shifting as well. In addition to social media outlets (e.g., Facebook) that have led to more pervasive sharing of personal details, patient-centric organizations (e.g., PatientsLikeMe) now provide the means to share in-depth information about health status and to identify research opportunities for motivated individuals.

Well, yes. And there's lots more of that kind of genetic self-revelation and sharing coming down the pike. More and more people are realizing that concerns over genetic privacy are way exaggerated as I explained in my article, "I'll Show You My Genome. Will You Show Me Yours?" If you're interested, click on over to SNPedia and take a look at my many genetic flaws.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Arizona Sheriff Won't 'Cooperate With Any Unconstitutional Order' On Guns

Ronald Bailey is science correspondent at Reason.

PrivacyRegulationScienceGenetics
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (9)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. DesigNate   12 years ago

    My concern would be the government using that information to screw with me through Obamacare or deciding that such and such gene means my rights can be taken away.

  2. Fist of Etiquette   12 years ago

    Go Ahead. Violate My Genetic Privacy. See If I Care!

    As soon as they peek into your genetic code, they'll see if you're predisposed to caring.

  3. Tim   12 years ago

    Bailey's cranking 'em out today.

  4. Paul.   12 years ago

    In a process known as "surname inference," the Erlich team was able to discover the family names of the men by submitting their Y-STRs to these databases.

    I heard this story yesterday on NPR, and it raised more questions than it answered. According to the researchers, they took the DNA and compared it with popular genealogy websites and then whipped on over to Facebook.

    From there they did the 'inference' test which sounded remarkably like that shit that 'security expert' was doing where he claimed he could figure out who you were using his patented technique of crawling social networking sites and 'discovering' all sorts of things about you. Reason did a post on that a few years back.

    The idea that if you voluntarily get your DNA tested and then WHAMMO the receptionist knows your address and what hours your home-- lot of steps between those two things.

    I mean, I find out all kinds of things about people around me that I only have a name on, because of facebook and it has nothing to do with DNA. When you voluntarily put shit on facebook, it does become kind of a central repository of correlated data.

    I personally think that the ability to tie in the DNA with the name had more to do with their technique than the actual DNA did.

    I'd doubld-dog dare these guys to personally identify me with only a dna strand in their hands.

  5. LTC(ret) John   12 years ago

    I wonder if they have Warty DNA or STEVE SMITH DNA? Might be fun to look for shirttail relatives of either of them.

    1. Dagny T.   12 years ago

      It is only a matter of time before we all have a little (or a lot! YMMV) STEVE SMITH and Warty DNA in us.

      1. Warty   12 years ago

        You're one to speak, after all the times you fucked my stupid sexy dad.

        1. Dagny T.   12 years ago

          You can be sure I violated that hot piece of genetic privacy repeatedly. For science.

  6. Mandate Amendment   12 years ago

    Wait until they start mandating this type of "health care". We need the Mandate Amendment now!

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Is the Supreme Court Really That Divided? The Facts Say No.

Billy Binion | 6.5.2025 5:21 PM

Milton Friedman Disproved Trump's Argument for Tariffs Decades Ago

Joe Lancaster | 6.5.2025 4:35 PM

If Viewers Love PBS So Much, Let Them Pay for It

Robby Soave | 6.5.2025 3:20 PM

Florida Woman Fined $165,000 for Trivial Code Violations Takes Her Case to the Florida Supreme Court

Autumn Billings | 6.5.2025 3:05 PM

Nathan Fielder's 737 Stunt Involved Elaborate Workaround of Ridiculous 1,500-Hour Rule

Christian Britschgi | 6.5.2025 2:50 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!