This will be fun now

All children will be able to receive whole genome sequencing at birth, under ambitions laid out by the Health Secretary.

Matt Hancock said that in future, the tests would be routinely offered, alongside standard checks on newborns, in order to map out the risk of genetic diseases, and offer “predictive, personalised” care.

Allow that to spread for a few years and we’ll get a very good handle on the misallocation of fatherhood over the population. Something that appears to be distinctly higher than most believe.

Won’t that be fun?

26 thoughts on “This will be fun now”

  1. 23 and Me has ties to Google, they want all of your data! The highly rumoured spare parts to order industry in China obviously values the genomes of religious and political dissidents. That the NHS wants to collect data is less sinister in that they have a solid track record of failure in large IT projects and information handling.

  2. ityn

    yes indeed! I read somewhere a while back that the percentage was about 1 in 4…..ie 25% of the “fathers” couldn’t possibly be so…..I seem to remember that the hospital doing the testing decided to stop….

  3. More profoundly – humans now have the ability to manipulate our genome. We are also able to enhance our bodies physically – think implants, artificial parts and the like. So…there is zero chance that future humans will not be significantly stronger, faster, cleverer, and all round better than we are. Homo Sapiens will become Homo Verydifferentus Cyborgus. We may even defeat death! The usual crowd will wail while China, Russia and others power ahead. An unimaginable physical, social and economic change is coming.

  4. I am reminded of the anthropologist who went round the world studying courtship and marriage customs.

    He found that the thing they all had in common was adultery.

  5. Something that appears to be distinctly higher than most believe.

    Really? Or have you been watching too much Jeremy Kyle and too many telenovelas? There are research papers out there which have done the analysis: rates are typically around 1%. Granted, just like the LGBT crowd, that 1% receives a disproportionate amount of attention; but the reality is quite boring.

    Besides, with the welfare state stepping in to take on the father’s role as provider, women no longer need to fool a man.

  6. I was going to ask what kind of dumb bitch requests a genome test when she knows that the dad isn’t the dad, but there are indeed plenty of them out there.

  7. I was going to ask what kind of dumb bitch requests a genome test when she knows that the dad isn’t the dad, but there are indeed plenty of them out there.

    I think that in a lot of cases “the dumb bitch” in question has no idea who the father is, since she’s been busy finding herself as her feminist enablers have told her to do. More likely she’s picked the fattest wallet around is hoping for the best.

  8. Really? Or have you been watching too much Jeremy Kyle and too many telenovelas? There are research papers out there which have done the analysis: rates are typically around 1%.

    We must be reading different research papers, because I’ve never seen a figure that low. The headline figures seem to be distorted by the fact that the ones that get testing done (for example to resolve CSA disputes) are the ones most likely to be found out – hence the 25% rate.

    The 2005 BMA study suggested that there was a wide variation in paternal discrepancy across the various studies (between 0.8% and 30%)

    https://jech.bmj.com/content/59/9/749.long

    The problem here though is that even very low levels of paternal discrepancy would reflect ruined families and lives (since who wants to be forced to accept a cuckoo in the nest), leading to an effective ban on testing in some countries as a matter of social policy (e.g. France)

  9. Genetic diseases are a really small fraction of the health problems that people get and, anyway, for most of them there is no cure. Because they are genetic, you see. If curability changes then that might be the time to spend more on tests.

    This sounds like a woefully ineffective way to spend the NHS budget, but by golly it’s Science so it must be good, eh? Good for a headline anyway.

    Personally I’d be happier with some increase in the probability that when I am about to undergo an operation there’s a chance that the Consultant is looking at my health record rather than some other bugger’s.

    Afterthought: there’s a Jewish organisation in NYC that runs genetic tests and gives eugenic advice about future spouses so that the future birth of children with horrible handicaps may be averted. Maybe there’s a community somewhere in Britain that might gain from the like. For the sake of political correctness we can all pretend that we are thinking of Norfolkers.

  10. Genetically modified babies are fine. But Heaven forfend that we eat genetically modified food.

    @dearieme
    Iceland has an ancestor registry, there’s an app on your smartphone to check if you’re about to get it on with your fifth cousin, Also Iceland has no Downs syndrome babies.

  11. Not quite Philip…

    “Babies with Down syndrome are still being born in Iceland,” said Hulda Hjartardottir, head of the Prenatal Diagnosis Unit at Landspitali University Hospital, where around 70 percent of Icelandic children are born. “Some of them were low risk in our screening test, so we didn’t find them in our screening.”

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/

    There is also a big difference between a lump of genetically modified corn and someone who suffers from a fatal genetic abnormality. My objection to GMO is not the modification itself, but rather the shoddy business practices of people like Monsanto who treat their “ownership” of their modified crops and seeds as if they were created by them from thin air rather than being the last link in a long line of human guided crop development.

    If some guy with a 1-in-4 chance of developing Huntington’s Disease wants to have gene therapy to prevent it, then that’s a good thing, surely?

  12. The word “receive” is doing a lot of work there.

    What they mean is the state will record everyone’s genome sequence at birth, for later use in whatever way they see fit, to save them the trouble of getting samples at a later date.

    It’s sort of an invisible bar-code branding.

    For your own good, of course.

  13. John Galt,

    You claim to have never seen a figure as low as 1%, then in the next paragraph you cite 0.8%.

    Whatever the present rate, the trend is clearly downwards. Studies from the 1950s cite high figures; more recent studies cite lower figures. That’s as expected – the advent of the pill and on-demand abortion have almost certainly reduced the incidence of cuckoldry.

  14. What they will have reduced is the risk of getting pregnant, which increases the opportunity for sex without getting caught out so possibly it’s increased the incidence of cuckoldry rather than decreased it

  15. BniC,
    Yes, you’re correct. Most likely outcome is more cheating, but fewer babies born from that cheating.

  16. in order to map out the risk of genetic diseases, and offer “predictive, personalised” care.

    As if Gov’t teaching children “world ends in 2030″ isn’t bad enough

    First day at school

    Personal chat session ” Hi Johhny, you will develop testicular cancer and die when you’re 30″

    Personal chat session ” Hi Lisa, you will develop dementia at 50 and die when you’re 60″

    Child mental health Mr Hancock?

    @dearieme November 6, 2019 at 1:40 pm

    +1

  17. John Galt
    My objection to GMO is not the modification itself, but rather the shoddy business practices of people like Monsanto who treat their “ownership” …

    So who should own them? The public (us) = the govt
    Good luck with that matey,
    If anything goes wrong I’d like to be able to sue the arse of some rich corporation.
    Which means that same corporation is better incentivised not to poison me.

  18. And it’s Bayer now, not Monsanto. I doubt they’d have done a $63 billion takeover if they thought they were going to take a huge hit from previous “shoddy business practices”

  19. @philip

    The Glyphosate suits continue against Bayer

    imo crock of shit claims looking for payout to limit legal costs. As Stuart Agnew (former UKIP MEP) often pointed out:

    “If [any chem] was so poisonous/carcinogenic farmers should be dying in huge numbers”

    As for GM being non-fertile seeds harvested – fine by me. Their tech, your choice to buy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *