[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 9 KB, 220x284, chart_p68_x220.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1286814 No.1286814 [Reply] [Original]

The cost of sequencing a human Genome is halving every 12 months.
The time it takes to sequence a human genome is halving every 12 months (I think the record ATM is currently just over 1 week)

Sooooo /sci.... hope you like your designer babies and Docs telling you your kids genetic susceptibilities in the delivery theatre!

>> No.1286821

what, are you calling the miracolous god given genetic code CHEAP, fuck you!

>> No.1286825

reading a book is easier than writing it

>> No.1286835

>>1286825
Yeah but that's tumbling too, I think SCIENCE has now identified something like 200 individual genetic diseases, how to spot them etc [citation needed]

You can only learn to read if you have books at hand

>> No.1286905

> "Exponential"
> the graph is a straight line
> my face

>> No.1286930

>>1286905

>Ph.D in Literature
>don't know shit about graphs
>fuck, I've been trolled again

>> No.1286931

We have only scratched the surface of genetics.
Genetic diseases are not the sole product of deficient or malicious genes.
There are many factors determining a genetic disease.
The main factor being the gene most associated with the disease.
I doubt any very useful genetic technology will be
available in the next 100 years.

>> No.1286943

>>1286931

Amniocentesis for serious, genetic abnormalities - available now.
Patient-tailored drug therapies - available now.
Gene therapy - available now, kinda, will be common in next 20-50 years.

Lots of stuff, why do you think they sequenced it in the first place? Boredom?

>> No.1286964

>>1286943

Ever heard of gene patenting? I know extremely
risky and expensive gene therapies are available,
but only the elite select few..

>> No.1286984

>>1286964

That's because it's new technology. Just like in OP's graph, the cost of gene therapy will rapidly shrink.

Maybe in America, but in normal parts of the world, gene patenting would not be allowed to happen.

>> No.1286998

>>1286984

I am assuming you do not understand gene therapy.
Crash course - the majority of "useful" genes are already privately owned, around 2000 of the 35000
genes are owned by different biotech companies
and universities. Let's say you develop a gene therapy
that plays off a patented gene, well the owner of that
gene will most likely sue you as they own a critical
component of the process.

This is very malevolent in the development of
genetics, with research and whatnot.

>> No.1287026

CAN I HAS A GAY PEDOPHILE SOCIOPATH KID PLS PLS ?

>> No.1287028

Just because you can sequence a human genome doesn't mean you can go ahead and change the DNA of every cell of a human body(or even every cell of a single organ). That's exactly why gene therapy is still so hard to do.

>> No.1287036

>>1286998

That's fucking stupid. My Genetics textbook mentioned this as well, but it made it sound a whole lot less evil.

>> No.1287051

>>1287028
no but you can turn genes on and off with RNA interference.

When we all have our genomes sequenced (say 10 years) we\;; know a fuckload more about disease and how to combat it.

Biotech will change the world in the next 20 years the way digital info tech has the last 20.

>> No.1287056

>>1287051

I know about RNAi, but it's nowhere near as magical as you might think. The thing is, it's relatively easy to disable a gene in a single cell, or a limited amount of cells, but it's pretty hard to do that in a whole organ or piece of tissue, which is necessary in diseases.

>> No.1287058

>>1287051
no, RNAi is next to impossible to use because of the difficulting of injecting RNA into cells, and the fact that RNA is unstable and will decay in a few days. Basically the only way to do RNAi these days for long-term purposes is to introduce a gene that produced the RNA in the cell, but that's gene therapy again, so you're back to the same problem

>> No.1287065

>>1287036

Yeah well big biotech firms and universities, notably
UCLA have won big lawsuits over research involving
the study of their "owned" genes

>> No.1287064

Gene therapy is actually fairly simple these days, but only immediately after fertilisation. In most in vitro fertilisations, the embryos are screened at the 8 or 16 cell stage for genetic diseases, and those that have them are destroyed. It's not the same as actually injecting a new gene in, but when you're only dealing with under 100 cells, that should not be a problem at all.

>> No.1287078

>>1287065
hey, they put millions into finding them, they might as well get first dibs on commercialising the results of that research.

>> No.1287079

Genes? Patented?

This is bullshit. It probably holds ground only in the US though. Also gene patents were ruled invalid, now the decision has been appealed.

>> No.1287107

>>1287078
>they might as well get first dibs on commercialising the results of that research.
First dibs. Not second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventh, eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth dibs.

>> No.1287140

>>1287078

They didn't create them. Finding something doesn't give you the right to claim it, especially if you are dealing with something you can't refuse.

Also, if they are so preoccupied with owning all those genes and denying others the right to investigate them/find cures for genetic diseases, then they should also be responsible for all the effects their genes cause. Like if they don't find a cure for genes that predispose you to cancer, then you should be able to sue them for manslaughter.

>> No.1287156

>>1286905
thats on a logarithmic scale

>> No.1287201

>>1287065

The point that several people have mentioned now is: only in America. In the real world, this would never happen.

>> No.1287213

>>1287065

It would be highly unethical and scientifically regressive to ban anyone from 'using' or researching 'their' genes. Especially if we're talking about common genes in their natural state.

Perhaps when considering their proprietary, cloned genes, then yes, they have a case. (As is the case with proprietary, 'over-the-counter' plasmids, etc.)

>>1286998

Don't patronise me. I've probably been doing biology and medical research for longer than you've been alive.

>> No.1287226

>>1287223

συν αἰων σοφια, my friend.

>> No.1287223
File: 12 KB, 356x303, 1277716336213.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1287223

>>1287213
Oldest oldfag in 4chan history detected.

>> No.1287235

>>1287226
Are you actually Greek? That made me slightly envious.

>> No.1287242

>>1287235

That's ancient Greek, not modern. No, not Greek.

>> No.1287259

>>1286905

clever troll is clever. its logarithmic if you didn't know that already.

>> No.1288000

>>1287140

They already claim ownership rights to sell water and land, why not genes?

>> No.1288033

>>1287140
>Like if they don't find a cure for genes that predispose you to cancer, then you should be able to sue them for manslaughter.

Actually, they would sue you for having their gene that causes cancer.

>> No.1288044

>>1286814
non-biofag here,
can anyone explain what this means/how it works (I know genomes are not transistors)?
Why such a sharp decline in costs?

>> No.1288086

>>1286905
It's a straight line because there's an exponential scale on the graph.
Look closely, $1B is the same distance from $1M as $1M is from $1k...

>> No.1288113

>>1288044
Use of computers, physical automation, and shrinking of equipment, when things started you had undergrads physically handling test tubes and loading big slow analyzers that worked with single samples and statistical analysis took days. Now a thousand samples can be processed by a large counter top machine with a robot arm simultaneously and the data pooled and compared almost instantly.