Week+14

media type="youtube" key="PLqb64Pb9So?feature=player_embedded" height="360" width="640" http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRynQyiQIK9VMiNI013510s9O8AQ?docId=d08cff4ba7db4260a565e94e6be4780f

As I was reading your book, a was interested by the business aspect about Celera that was discussed on pages 56 and 57, especially the part about the stock on page 57. At what point should a medical company become more concerned about saving lives than earning money? Or vice versa? Can this point vary from country to country, or even company to company depending on the objectives of the people running the industry? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js6160e/6.html#Js6160e.6 http://www.dukeupress.edu/Catalog/ViewProduct.php?productid=14736

In your article, the last two sentences state,"But if getting a new past in which you've consented to be included in a future database seems weird, consider the far stranger ontological fissure that opened around the ghosts of Icelanders past: their consent to be in the database was also presumed. Suddenly, somehow these spirits were there on December 17, made present by an altered past and promised future." My question is, since the Health Sector Database was implicitly opt-out and everyones' information was in the servers at the beginning, what happens to children born after the database was put into effect? Did they become active in the system or if their parents opt- out, did they automatically not go into the database?

After reading the excerpts from your book, I'm curious if your overall outlook on genomics changed at all while you were conducting your research. Did you start the research with any preconceived notions that were dramatically challenged? At any point in your research did you struggle with objectivity? Has your research made you more or less curious to get your own genetic screening done?