If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   The state of Texas is trying to build a clone army by submitting newborn blood samples to the Armed Forces' "Forensic Database"   (news.sciencemag.org) divider line 94
    More: Scary, blood samples, The Tribune, lists, storage, pathology, newborn blood samples, pediatrics, rare diseases  
•       •       •

9388 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Feb 2010 at 4:20 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



94 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-02-22 11:49:28 PM
And if you think THIS is bad, wait until we have tighter government control over our health care system.
 
2010-02-22 11:57:21 PM
Weaver95: And if you think THIS is bad, wait until we have tighter government control over our health care system.

Think about it. Texas is threatening to secede over healthcare and that ni-BONG sheriff. The healthcare bill will prevent insurers from dropping or preventing sick people from getting coverage. So if it passes, they can secede, and have DNA samples to make replacements for all the kids that the insurance companies will murder by dropping their parent's health insurance because daddy is a lazy handout-goblin who lost his bootstraps and job.

Texas isn't crazy, they're just ahead of the curve.
 
2010-02-23 01:08:40 AM
At birth you are named, numbered, printed and photographed. This was only a matter of time.
 
2010-02-23 01:30:53 AM
They collect the blood to test for diseases at birth, which makes sense to me.

Now, what they do with it after that? If the samples are covered by the same kinds of guidelines that tissue removed from patients is, then they can do basically anything they want with it.
 
2010-02-23 01:32:57 AM
I can haz Texas tag?
 
2010-02-23 04:31:02 AM
When do the insurance companies get their hands on this information?
 
2010-02-23 04:34:35 AM
cksewell: At birth you are named, numbered, printed and photographed. This was only a matter of time.

OMG, not PHOTOGRAPHED! No wonder kids have no souls these days.
 
2010-02-23 04:42:54 AM
When did Texas become like those happy Brits?
 
2010-02-23 04:48:23 AM
Because the samples are anonymous (though they may come with some demographic information, depending on the study), researchers have argued that they don't need to seek informed consent to use them.

Much ado about nothing.
 
2010-02-23 04:49:24 AM
Just out of curiosity, can anyone PROVE that the other 49 states aren't doing exactly the same thing?
 
2010-02-23 04:57:00 AM
That's going to be one stupid army.
 
2010-02-23 05:12:14 AM
Let me guess... one day you receive a court order saying you must present your kid for mandatory blood donation since the current supplies of their blood type are low overseas? Why not to do so would be unpatriotic.
 
2010-02-23 05:16:27 AM
racerx666: Because the samples are anonymous (though they may come with some demographic information, depending on the study), researchers have argued that they don't need to seek informed consent to use them.

Much ado about nothing.


... That's like saying a list of social security numbers is anonymous.
 
2010-02-23 05:20:25 AM
If you're going to build a clone army, why would you use Texans as the stock? Hell, why would you use more than one person as the stock?
 
2010-02-23 05:21:08 AM
They just want to be sure they are executing the right guy in the future. DNA is a motherfarker.
 
2010-02-23 05:36:09 AM
AvaFark: If you're going to build a clone army, why would you use Texans as the stock? Hell, why would you use more than one person as the stock?

Maybe they're worried about their storm troopers being overly susceptible to biological weapons.
 
2010-02-23 05:41:30 AM
racerx666: Because the samples are anonymous (though they may come with some demographic information, depending on the study), researchers have argued that they don't need to seek informed consent to use them.

Much ado about nothing.


that's what 'they' say. but i, for one, would like documentation explicitly stating what the samples will be used for under public dominion and then, and only then, will i consent to any samples used in any study.
 
2010-02-23 05:50:19 AM
AvaFark: If you're going to build a clone army, why would you use Texans as the stock?

Because Texans are born with genetic knowledge of firearms operation, thus saving the government money on training.
 
2010-02-23 05:59:25 AM
for what it is worth

Here's a cool story for ya bro

A few years ago Seattle, Washington police sent out a mass mailer to white males that fit a profile of a serial rapist they were having trouble finding.

The mailer was the kind of thing that you get in the mail asking you for information if you wanted to be included in a class action law suit. It claimed to be a law firm that was suing the city for over charges to parking tickets.

Once you returned the information and licked the envelope the police had your name and DNA from your spittle. They then tested it against DNA from the unknown rapist left at crime scenes.

It did not work in catching the rapist, but it did give the city a database of DNA.

The collection was halted and the city was sued by civil rights groups due to the fact that the city overstepped it's bounds by claiming to be a law firm, but to my knowledge the data was never destroyed.

So, I assume that now, the city has a database of white males between the ages of 20-40 to check DNA found at crime scenes to cross check against.

I realize that 800 people don't seem like a lot of samples and they claim that the samples are anonymous, but 15-20 years from now what do you say when the cops kick your door in for probable cause and start asking you about the night of October 23?
 
2010-02-23 06:01:25 AM
"..intended as a reference databank for the forensic community and for research into mitochondrial DNA variation-DNA we inherit from our mother"

Feb 3, 2007: Texas orders STD vaccine for all girls

/checking their work?
//Calling Dr. Jones, Dr. Alex Jones
 
2010-02-23 06:04:51 AM
Approves:

data51.sevenload.com
 
2010-02-23 06:24:31 AM
The problem is that lab techs can now get DNA samples that are so small that cross contamination is inevitable. That person you accidentally sneezed on later gets rapped or murdered? Even if you have an alibi that won't help you.

Don't laugh, such things have already happened. (new window)

Jama had steadfastly denied the charge of rape and said he had never been to that nightclub, not on that cold Melbourne night, not ever. He repeatedly stated he was with his critically ill father on the other side of Melbourne, reading him passages from the Koran.

But the judge and the jury did not buy his alibi, despite supporting evidence from his father, brother and friend. Instead, they believed the forensic scientist who testified there was a one in 800 billion chance that the DNA belonged to someone other than the accused man.

This week Jama gave the lie to that absurdly remote statistic. After prosecutors admitted human error in the DNA testing on which the case against Jama was built, his conviction was overturned.


Not to mention that the supposed margin of error that prosecutors love to quote is theoretical and, to my knowlege, has never actualy been verified.
 
2010-02-23 06:28:16 AM
IamTomJoad: Once you returned the information and licked the envelope the police had your name and DNA from your spittle....It did not work in catching the rapist, but it did give the city a database of DNA.

I think I'm going to let the dog lick all my envelopes from now on.
 
2010-02-23 06:36:34 AM
Reason #35 to not have kids.
 
2010-02-23 06:37:13 AM
theFrakamazog: IamTomJoad: Once you returned the information and licked the envelope the police had your name and DNA from your spittle....It did not work in catching the rapist, but it did give the city a database of DNA.

I think I'm going to let the dog lick all my envelopes from now on.


www.officebella.com

Hot and moist
 
2010-02-23 06:44:59 AM
Aardvark Inc.: Let me guess... one day you receive a court order saying you must present your kid for mandatory blood donation since the current supplies of their blood type are low overseas? Why not to do so would be unpatriotic.

You are a goddamn idiot.
 
2010-02-23 07:15:23 AM
Sounds like we got the start of a movie plot...
Take the best genetics out of all of the samples, do a little gene splicing, get the cloning tanks started. New breed of super soldier does the kick ass and take names thing for a few missions but they start to go awry, becoming unpredictable and then uncontrollable. The clones go bonkers and all hell breaks loose.
 
2010-02-23 07:18:00 AM
Sid_6.7: Aardvark Inc.: Let me guess... one day you receive a court order saying you must present your kid for mandatory blood donation since the current supplies of their blood type are low overseas? Why not to do so would be unpatriotic.

You are a goddamn idiot.


I would tend to agree, except if you go back 20 years, there are many topics that people had the same reaction to that are common place and ordinary today.
 
2010-02-23 07:30:44 AM
aearra: When do the insurance companies get their hands on this information?

As soon as the check clears envelope full of cash passes.
 
2010-02-23 07:44:15 AM
Begun, the Clone wars have not yet... y'all
 
2010-02-23 07:52:56 AM
potierrh: Sid_6.7: Aardvark Inc.: Let me guess... one day you receive a court order saying you must present your kid for mandatory blood donation since the current supplies of their blood type are low overseas? Why not to do so would be unpatriotic.

You are a goddamn idiot.

I would tend to agree, except if you go back 20 years, there are many topics that people had the same reaction to that are common place and ordinary today.


Calling bullshiat.

I've been an adult for the last 25 years. What do we have today that is commonplace and accepted today that was as intrusive and as open to egregious violations of privacy as building up a DNA registry at birth?
 
2010-02-23 07:53:31 AM
Well, where would go to get DNA for an army, San Francisco?

When jihad bent Muslim lunatics come over a ridge firing RPGs and small arms fire, you want your battalion to expeditiously grab their weapons and open up a can of whoop-ass on the mother-farkers.

You don't want your troops debating what purse to wear during the retreat.

Geez pinkos, get some brains and think this stuff out why don't you.
 
2010-02-23 07:55:00 AM
There's growing concern among researchers that public wariness about the newborn screening program will create a backlash-with parents declining to screen their kids (who may end up much sicker because their disease wasn't caught early)

Gee, ya think? Would it have been that hard to . . . I don't know, *ask permission from the donors*? If the donors refused it, what does that tell you about what they think about you using it?

And now the problem isn't the fact that they were using it without donor permission? The problem is "public awareness".

Yeah, and the problem isn't that I was robbing a bank. The problem is that I got caught doing it.
 
2010-02-23 07:58:55 AM
Just another reason to vote out Rick Perry for you Texas farkers.
 
2010-02-23 08:08:49 AM
craxyd: Sounds like we got the start of a movie plot...
Take the best genetics out of all of the samples, do a little gene splicing, get the cloning tanks started. New breed of super soldier does the kick ass and take names thing for a few missions but they start to go awry, becoming unpredictable and then uncontrollable. The clones go bonkers and all hell breaks loose.


Just watch Soldier and Universal Soldier back to back and you'd pretty much have that covered.
 
2010-02-23 08:12:40 AM
This is a bit odd, but ultimately harmless. The samples were anonymous. The samples are anonymous and they're just doing research in variation.
 
2010-02-23 08:12:53 AM
You know who else tried to build a clone army?

/Godwin's law
 
2010-02-23 08:13:39 AM
If you have nothing to hide whats the big deal about a national database containing all US citizens DNA?

/sarcasm
 
2010-02-23 08:13:44 AM
And I typed "the samples are anonymous" twice because I previewed zero times.
 
2010-02-23 08:19:33 AM
FTFA:researchers have argued that they don't need to seek informed consent to use them.

That's an argument anyone with a PhD should know better than to try and make. Even if you could prove the action legal, you've contributed to the distrust of the general public in scientific research.
 
2010-02-23 08:27:44 AM
FuturePastNow: This is a bit odd, but ultimately harmless.

By no means. The *concealment* of what they were doing is not harmless. The fact that they see nothing wrong with doing this without donor permission is not harmless.

So, why do you think the samples were anonymous? Because the guys supplying the samples without informed consent said so?

It's a trust issue. The fact that this was even happening without consent damages that trust -- and makes it harder to get the consent that they should have asked for in the first place.
 
2010-02-23 08:29:56 AM
they're also installing microchips under their skin so they can track them with GPS.



/not really.
 
2010-02-23 08:34:02 AM
Hobodeluxe: they're also installing microchips under their skin so they can track them with GPS.

/not really.


I don't really see the point in that, when it can be overcome by simply gluing a piece of aluminum foil over the area.
 
2010-02-23 08:37:59 AM
When my son was born I asked when they were going to take his dna since GWB had passed this into law the previous year and they just gave me a funny look
 
2010-02-23 08:38:52 AM
Ah Texas. You should go from the Lone Star State to the "No Ethics State".
 
2010-02-23 08:43:28 AM
dittybopper:

Calling bullshiat.

I've been an adult for the last 25 years. What do we have today that is commonplace and accepted today that was as intrusive and as open to egregious violations of privacy as building up a DNA registry at birth?


Cameras all over the place, FISA, confiscating anything even remotely attached to drugs whether or not the user is convicted, government datamining public databases etc, etc. You must not be paying attention.

/And then there are all of the things corporations are doing, related to privacy, that they shouldn't be allowed to do which only helps the government.
 
2010-02-23 08:47:01 AM
Gosh, I thought Texas was all about smaller, less intrusive government? Oh wait, they lied
 
2010-02-23 08:47:38 AM
I don't own a tinfoil hat, but I'd like to point out that Alex Jones was on this story months ago.


/'cause you can't stop freedom when it's in nugget form
 
2010-02-23 08:48:27 AM
dittybopper: Calling bullshiat.

I've been an adult for the last 25 years. What do we have today that is commonplace and accepted today that was as intrusive and as open to egregious violations of privacy as building up a DNA registry at birth?


Traffic light cameras, as well as all the cameras in stores, cameras on the highways for traffic reports, companies using online storage of sensitive data, governments loading up all public records online, and the search engines that allow stalkers to track victims. How am I doing so far? My tin-foil hat is a little tight, so while I understand about no expectation of privacy in public places, I still get creeped out. I specifically have gone to great lengths not to be easily identified, and yet my ex was able to find me after my county posted my home address under my legal name, not under the name the property was registered under. I'm already in a national DNA database, and I don't want anyone to have access to it, unless I am given the opportunity to review their reasons for wanting it. And then I will decide whether or not to grant access.

I thought Roe v. Wade gave us a right to privacy. Yet, almost 40 years later, the government knows more about each of us than ever before.
 
2010-02-23 08:52:02 AM
sedavies: Well, where would go to get DNA for an army, San Francisco?

When jihad bent Muslim lunatics come over a ridge firing RPGs and small arms fire, you want your battalion to expeditiously grab their weapons and open up a can of whoop-ass on the mother-farkers.

You don't want your troops debating what purse to wear during the retreat.

Geez pinkos, get some brains and think this stuff out why don't you.


-1/10.
Obvious troll is Obvious.
 
Displayed 50 of 94 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report