h a l f b a k e r y(Serving suggestion.)
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
As has been stated elsewhere, //In another 5-10 years, it should also be possible to do full on- the-spot genome analysis on a mouth swab or mouth rinse//(1). It's only a small step beyond that to having devices constantly 'sniff' the DNA cloud we all leave behind us, perform instant analysis on it,
and convert its findings into another human 'sense', telling us new and surprising (and incredibly intrusive and embarrassing) things about the people we meet.
(1) Buchanan, Maxwell Ptolemy: Annotation on "Health evaluation", May 10th, 2018
[link]
|
| |
How on earth did you uncover my middle name? I was never
completely happy about being partially named after my
[great x 66] grandfather. |
|
| |
"Sniffing" would be tricky - we don't actually shed a lot of
DNA. You're looking at dead skin cells, so you'd need to
hoover up a reasonable volume of air. You'd also want quite
a few of them (I'm guessing tens), since they're dead and
their DNA will probably be shot. That said, there's enough
DNA in the few skin cells in a fingerprint to recover forensic
data. |
|
| |
It would definitely be possible, at present, to get a
complete genome sequence from someone from a used glass
or a cigarette butt. It would cost in the region of $1000* for
a comprehensive (though not perfect) genome sequence.
But at present it would take at least a few hours to get that
data - probably a day. If Oxford Nanoporn's technology
worked properly, you might get it down to a couple of
hours, but it doesn't. |
|
| |
*Realistically, more. Sequencing would cost ~$1000, but
you'd need to pay for some skilled time to recover and work
up the DNA. |
|
| |
This could make speed-dating interesting. "Ooh, I see that
you've got a defective 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor 1E, I've
also got one of those. The odds of us having kids with birth
defects is way too high. Let's move on to the next tables,
shall we?" |
|
| |
The main Idea here describes something that actually could
be more intrusive than having cameras everywhere. That's
because image-recognition is less accurate than DNA
recognition. If your DNA is on file somewhere, and sensors
collecting DNA samples are everywhere, then that means no
matter where you go, you can be tracked. (And think about
what those sniffers might look like? Cameras are at least
generally recognize-able!) |
|
| |
[Max] - I thought we breathed out quite a bit of DNA -
is this not true? |
|
| |
//I thought we breathed out quite a bit of DNA// If you
cough, I daresay your DNA could be easily recovered from
droplets of what molecular biologists refer to as "gunk". In
normal breathing, though, I don't think you'll find any DNA;
it's not volatile, and I don't think normal breathing produces
aerosol droplets. |
|
| |
If you grabbed a microphone after someone had been
talking or singing at it (preferably a song with lots of F's and
P's in it; or anything in Welsh), you could probably get their
DNA off the mike (along with that of previous users). |
|
| |
//named after my [great x 66] grandfather.// the Pt notation could also be "Pterodactyl". |
|
| |
"ACGTTTTGCACCCGTT TGCAAGGT TTTGCCAACAACAC
AGTGTGGTTTGCA GGC TTGAA" |
|
| |
"Nice, so what part of Wales are you from?" |
|
| |
// "ACGTTTTGCACCCGTT TGCAAGGT TTTGCCAACAACAC AGTGTGGTTTGCA GGC TTGAA" // |
|
| |
That can't be in welsh ... it contains vowels. |
|
| |
//How on earth did you uncover my middle name?//
Just guesswork, but there are an infinite number of
parallel universes in which I guessed wrong |
|
| |