Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Why handing your DNA over to ancestry databases is risky
What, exactly, do they do with your DNA?
The triumphant identification and capture of the feared Golden State Killer, Joseph James DeAngelo, showed the power of DNA analysis in crime fighting. It also opened a frightening new chapter in surveillance and invasive tactics to track DNA which could prove detrimental to our privacy. In a worst-case scenario, ominous sounding policies such as “predictive policing” could morph into the collection and maintenance of DNA libraries of anyone with a hereditary propensity to commit crimes. The U.S. Supreme Court has already afforded police the right to collect DNA samples from anyone detained in order to check for outstanding warrants on other crimes.
Make no mistake, the resolution of the Golden State Killer case is a welcome outcome. The serial killer, burglar and rapist committed at least 12 murders, more than 50 rapes and over 100 burglaries from 1974 through 1986. But we are in a wild new frontier when it comes to DNA, privacy and the way that law enforcement and others can access and search our DNA.
To solve the Golden State Killer case, investigators used ancestry databases to look for rare genetic mutations or sequences that matched the DNA found at the crime scenes. Tens of millions of people have uploaded their genomic information into various services for tracking their ancestry, such as Ancestry.com, or for identifying genetic traits with health implications, such as the 23andMe service.
The law enforcement team doing this was not a bunch of PhDs. It was a team of normal cops who knew enough about how the databases worked to understand that they could be used to try to track down cold cases and leads. It’s entirely possible today for a fairly skilled amateur investigator to do a DIY genetic material-matching investigation.
In the coming years, we will see a flood of DNA information enter all manner of services and systems: in healthcare, government and law enforcement, as the cost of sequencing an individual’s genome approaches single digits, becoming about what you might pay for a cup of coffee. Even now the cost is $100 to $200 in many instances. That is low enough to make it cheaper than the vast majority of most medical diagnostic tests today.
At the same time, tools are emerging that will make DNA collection and sequencing in the field —without a skilled lab technician—possible and affordable. There are some systems live now but this will become widespread within the next five years. Because all of us throw off high volumes of genetic material with every sneeze, handshake or even by rubbing our arm against a table, it will become trivial to harvest DNA from just about any public persona.
In this new era of omnipresent DNA exhaust and nearly omniscient DNA analysis, the current legal framework is insufficient and unfair.
The concerns about DNA exhaust and growing troves of DNA information being used as an unfair and unreasonable weapon against us are now a very real thing. Take the BRCA gene, which is highly predictive of breast cancer. As we identify more and more of these types of relatively simplistic genomic probabilities, then I imagine health insurance companies will insist on getting a genome test (if they are legally allowed to do that - which they are not right now). The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) - which took effect in 2009 - already addresses this to a small degree by prohibiting the use of DNA considerations in health insurance or employment decisions. But GINA does not prevent genetic discrimination in other forms of insurance such as life or long-term disability or, say, automobile insurance. In fact, life insurance companies already have refused coverage to applicants based on results of genetic testing - precisely because the applicant had the BRCA gene.
Further, GINA does not apply to persons receiving health care through the U.S. Veterans Administration or to businesses with less than 15 employees. (This is a giant gaping hole that will become more obvious as the cost of genetic sequencing drops closer and closer to $5). GINA does not effectively address whether data shared with genetic testing services can be used to track us as part of a criminal investigation or for other purposes.
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court did find that DNA samples can be taken from suspects without consent during an arrest and used to search for other outstanding warrants against that suspect. This decision split the court 5-4. In a rare occurrence, both the most liberal factions and the most conservative factions of the justices vehemently opposed the majority ruling. So there is a precedent for DNA sample seizure. And in 1988 the Supreme Court did rule that there is no right to privacy in trash outside the home but the court in 2015 refused to consider whether it was OK for police to collect DNA samples inadvertently shed by suspects.
Clearly, this is not a settled matter among legal scholars and civil liberties groups, some of whom believe that this ruling codified an unlawful form of search and seizure. What’s more, they point out, it could unfairly discriminate against minorities, who are disproportionately represented in the Federal genetic databases. In at least one case, faulty DNA information in a familial search was used to arrest a suspect, who was later exonerated.
Which leads us back to the Golden State Killer. Many of the genetic testing and ancestry analysis services put in their terms of service that they will share their information with third-parties, including the police. This doesn’t mean they are selling genetic data to the highest bidder. But some do comply with police requests to search their data to look for potential matches in relatives of suspected criminals. Law enforcement agencies often compare these private database samples against the millions of DNA profiles the U.S. government has already collected from suspects and convicted criminals. Called “familial searching”, this technique has been banned in Washington D.C. and the state of Maryland.
Make no mistake - there are some very murky areas around what constitutes a reasonable search and seizure of someone’s DNA. Errant assumptions in the Golden State Killer case led investigators to chase two false leads. To be sure, crime hotlines pull in numerous - at times thousands - of false leads. But those leads don’t carry the same force as DNA, which is backed by science and is direct proof of presence or proximity, unlike, say, cell phone information which is an object on our persons but not definitive proof.
In the case of the Golden State Killer, errant lead collection included a judge in Oregon even issuing an order allowing investigators to collect DNA samples from a man in a retirement home - by force, if necessary. He turned out not to be related to the killer. What if that had happened and it had been the killer? Does that DNA evidence collected by force constitute self-incrimination? It’s also important to note that DNA evidence is not infallible. In the case of the false arrest of Michael Usry, the DNA evidence appears to have been corrupted, resulting in a false positive. DNA, like any other physical object, can also be modified or marred by environmental conditions.,
There is now a rush to research cases both recent and from the distant past with this new tool. And now, each and every one of us, as we move about our daily existence must cope with the fact that the DNA we exhaust everyday can be easily collected and used against us. Right now, citizens have few protections, and law enforcement and others have every reason to push forward with efforts to track us by our DNA. As more and more information about our DNA is collected, it will be harder and harder to control how that information is used. In the era of DNA exhaust, we may lose control of how our own genetic material is stored, analyzed and collected. That’s a pretty scary future.
The finding is remarkably similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetent people tend to overestimate their own competency.
- Recent studies asked participants to rate the attractiveness of themselves and other participants, who were strangers.
- The studies kept yielding the same finding: unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness, while attractive people underrate their looks.
- Why this happens is unclear, but it doesn't seem to be due to a general inability to judge attractiveness.
There's no shortage of disparities between attractive and unattractive people. Studies show that the best-looking among us tend to have an easier time making money, receiving help, avoiding punishment, and being perceived as competent. (Sure, research also suggests beautiful people have shorter relationships, but they also have more sexual partners, and more options for romantic relationships. So call it a wash.)
Now, new research reveals another disparity: Unattractive people seem less able to accurately judge their own attractiveness, and they tend to overestimate their looks. In contrast, beautiful people tend to rate themselves more accurately. If anything, they underestimate their attractiveness.
The research, published in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, involved six studies that asked participants to rate the attractiveness of themselves and other participants, who were strangers. The studies also asked participants to predict how others might rate them.
In the first study, lead author Tobias Greitemeyer found that the participants who were most likely to overestimate their attractiveness were among the least attractive people in the study, based on average ratings.
Ratings of subjective attractiveness as a function of the participant's objective attractiveness (Study 1)
"Overall, unattractive participants judged themselves to be of about average attractiveness and they showed very little awareness that strangers do not share this view. In contrast, attractive participants had more insights into how attractive they actually are. [...] It thus appears that unattractive people maintain illusory self‐perceptions of their attractiveness, whereas attractive people's self‐views are more grounded in reality."
Why do unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness? Could it be because they want to maintain a positive self-image, so they delude themselves? After all, previous research has shown that people tend to discredit or "forget" negative social feedback, which seems to help protect a sense of self-worth.
To find out, Greitemeyer conducted a study that aimed to put participants in a positive, non-defensive mindset before rating attractiveness. He did that by asking participants questions that affirmed parts of their personality that had nothing to do with physical appearance, such as: "Have you ever been generous and selfless to another person?" Yet, this didn't change how participants rated themselves, suggesting that unattractive people aren't overestimating their looks out of defensiveness.
The studies kept yielding the same finding: unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness. Does that bias sound familiar? If so, you might be thinking of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetent people tend to overestimate their own competency. Why? Because they lack the metacognitive skills needed to discern their own shortcomings.
Greitemeyer found that unattractive people were worse at differentiating between attractive and unattractive people. But the finding that unattractive people may have different beauty ideals (or, more plainly, weaker ability to judge attractiveness) did "not have an impact on how they perceive themselves."
In short, it remains a mystery exactly why unattractive people overestimate their looks. Greitemeyer concluded that, while most people are decent at judging the attractiveness of others, "it appears that those who are unattractive do not know that they are unattractive."
Unattractive people aren't completely unaware
The results of one study suggested that unattractive people aren't completely in the dark about their looks. In the study, unattractive people were shown a set of photos of highly attractive and unattractive people, and they were asked to select photos of people with comparable attractiveness. Most unattractive people chose to compare themselves with similarly unattractive people.
"The finding that unattractive participants selected unattractive stimulus persons with whom they would compare their attractiveness to suggests that they may have an inkling that they are less attractive than they want it to be," Greitemeyer wrote.
Every star we can see, including our sun, was born in one of these violent clouds.
This article was originally published on our sister site, Freethink.
An international team of astronomers has conducted the biggest survey of stellar nurseries to date, charting more than 100,000 star-birthing regions across our corner of the universe.
Stellar nurseries: Outer space is filled with clouds of dust and gas called nebulae. In some of these nebulae, gravity will pull the dust and gas into clumps that eventually get so big, they collapse on themselves — and a star is born.
These star-birthing nebulae are known as stellar nurseries.
The challenge: Stars are a key part of the universe — they lead to the formation of planets and produce the elements needed to create life as we know it. A better understanding of stars, then, means a better understanding of the universe — but there's still a lot we don't know about star formation.
This is partly because it's hard to see what's going on in stellar nurseries — the clouds of dust obscure optical telescopes' view — and also because there are just so many of them that it's hard to know what the average nursery is like.
The survey: The astronomers conducted their survey of stellar nurseries using the massive ALMA telescope array in Chile. Because ALMA is a radio telescope, it captures the radio waves emanating from celestial objects, rather than the light.
"The new thing ... is that we can use ALMA to take pictures of many galaxies, and these pictures are as sharp and detailed as those taken by optical telescopes," Jiayi Sun, an Ohio State University (OSU) researcher, said in a press release.
"This just hasn't been possible before."
Over the course of the five-year survey, the group was able to chart more than 100,000 stellar nurseries across more than 90 nearby galaxies, expanding the amount of available data on the celestial objects tenfold, according to OSU researcher Adam Leroy.
New insights: The survey is already yielding new insights into stellar nurseries, including the fact that they appear to be more diverse than previously thought.
"For a long time, conventional wisdom among astronomers was that all stellar nurseries looked more or less the same," Sun said. "But with this survey we can see that this is really not the case."
"While there are some similarities, the nature and appearance of these nurseries change within and among galaxies," he continued, "just like cities or trees may vary in important ways as you go from place to place across the world."
Astronomers have also learned from the survey that stellar nurseries aren't particularly efficient at producing stars and tend to live for only 10 to 30 million years, which isn't very long on a universal scale.
Looking ahead: Data from the survey is now publicly available, so expect to see other researchers using it to make their own observations about stellar nurseries in the future.
"We have an incredible dataset here that will continue to be useful," Leroy said. "This is really a new view of galaxies and we expect to be learning from it for years to come."
Tiny specks of space debris can move faster than bullets and cause way more damage. Cleaning it up is imperative.
- NASA estimates that more than 500,000 pieces of space trash larger than a marble are currently in orbit. Estimates exceed 128 million pieces when factoring in smaller pieces from collisions. At 17,500 MPH, even a paint chip can cause serious damage.
- To prevent this untrackable space debris from taking out satellites and putting astronauts in danger, scientists have been working on ways to retrieve large objects before they collide and create more problems.
- The team at Clearspace, in collaboration with the European Space Agency, is on a mission to capture one such object using an autonomous spacecraft with claw-like arms. It's an expensive and very tricky mission, but one that could have a major impact on the future of space exploration.
This is the first episode of Just Might Work, an original series by Freethink, focused on surprising solutions to our biggest problems.
Catch more Just Might Work episodes on their channel: https://www.freethink.com/shows/just-might-work