Brandolini’s principle
Tag Archives: ethics
Besser rationaler als effektiver Altruismus
Rechtzeitig vor Weihnachten greift der SPIEGEL das Thema “effektiver Altruismus” auf wobei es hier schwer ist, den exzellenten Wikipedia Eintrag noch zu toppen.
Ich bin nicht von dem Ansatz überzeugt. Pervers erscheint mir die earning to give Idee, “eine Hochertrags-Karriere in einer potenziell unethischen Industrie zu verfolgen” etwa in der Hochfinanz oder bei Meta, um danach mehr Geld zu spenden. Es spricht allerdings nichts dagegen, Spenden rational und mit Risikodiversifikation in politisch und sozial verträgliche Bereichen zu investieren.
Der effektive Altruismus ist kaltherzig, wurde nicht umsonst von Pokerspielern erfunden und auch nur von Ethikern wie Singer propagiert. Ich vermute er wird nicht deshalb scheitern, weil er elitär abgehoben ist und letztendlich Konkurrenz der Chatities befeuert, sondern weil der kalte Altruismus durch die persönliche Distanz keine positiven Feedbackschleifen entwickeln kann.
Böse Zungen und der Ethikrat
Böse Zungen lästern schon lange über den Ethikrat, er würde nur als PR Büro für den/die jeweilige Vorsitzende dienen.
Der Staatsrechtler Möllers kommentierte die Stellungnahmen des Ethikrates vor kurzem in einem Dlf Interview
Er muss irgendwas sagen, was alle sowieso schon wissen, was sich auch nicht in den rechtlichen Argumenten auflöst und was irgendwie einen Gehalt hat, der aber auch nicht zu umstritten sein darf, weil sonst begibt sich der Ethikrat gleich wieder in einen politischen Konflikt. Da bleiben oft doch nur ein bisschen einerseits Gemeinplätze übrig und andererseits auch mal Aufforderungen zur Solidarität, von denen ich meine, dass sie politisch wahrscheinlich richtig ist – es ist richtig zu sagen, wir müssen noch ein bisschen durchhalten und es geht nicht so schnell – aber die vielleicht dann auch keine richtig ethischen Argumente sind, sondern eher politische Argumente, die den Laden ein bisschen zusammenhalten in einem Moment, in dem sich alles etwas aufzulösen droht… Auch dazu kleben die Ausführungen doch sehr am positiven Recht und verhalten sich gar nicht dazu, dass man das ja auch gestalten kann.
Ähnlicher Tenor auch die NZZ.
So die Vorsitzende des Ethikrates mit “Lockdown ist nicht verhältnismässig” kurz vor Beginn der zweiten Welle. Ethik als alternative Wissenschaft?
Impfpriorisierung – erst Empfehlung, dann Bauchschmerzen, dann Auslaufmodell.
Impfpflicht – keine, vielleicht, aber sicher!
2G -jein.
Sonderregelungen für Geimpfte?
Triage?
Paul Dirac and the parrot
Found at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
When Bohr bemoaned to Ernest Rutherford, “Dirac never says anything,” Rutherford replied with a story about a shop owner assuaging a dissatisfied customer who had purchased a parrot that would not speak. “Please forgive me. You wanted a parrot that talks, and I gave you the parrot that thinks.”
Image modification in scientific publications: 10 rules for acceptable use
I am summarizing here some rules what consists of acceptable image use in scientific publications (Rossner 2004). Pioneers in the field have been the Journal of Cell Biology (J) but also Nature (N) and EMBO Press (E). Here are 10 rules:
- Digital images submitted with a manuscript for review should be minimally processed (N).
- Specific feature within an image may not be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or introduced (J, E). The use of touch-up tools, such as cloning and healing tools, or any feature that deliberately obscures manipulations, is unacceptable (N).
- Dividing lines may not be added between juxtaposed images taken from different parts of the same gel or from different gels, fields, or exposures (J, E). If juxtaposing images is essential, the surrounding gel shown at least at the size of the band, borders should be clearly demarcated and described in the legend (N).
- Images gathered at different times or from different locations should not be combined into a single image, unless it is stated that the resultant image is a product of time-averaged data or a time-lapse sequence.
- Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance that have been applied to the entire image may not enhance, erase, or misrepresent any information present in the original, including the background (J, E).
- Images from the same object may not be repeated within the manuscript. Any reuse of images, including control images from earlier papers, should be explicitly stated and justified in the legend (J). Reprobed Western blots should be clearly indicated.
- Nonlinear adjustments (e.g., changes to gamma settings) must be disclosed in the figure legend (J). Processing such as changing brightness and contrast is appropriate only when it is applied equally across the entire image and is applied equally to controls. Contrast should not be adjusted so that data disappear (N).
- Excessive manipulations, such as processing to emphasize one region in the image at the expense of others, is inappropriate (N).
- Deposition of all RAW image files is encouraged (N). An option is figshare.com that is available since 2014.
- There should be a better distinction of object and image, e.g. the re-use of the same object in multiple images should be banned. With any additional image in a paper, this is assumed to be additional and independent evidence of a given fact. Exception of that rule is a clear label (box, arrows, letters) as well as a legend why and from where it has been taken from (J).
These are general rules only. Specific rules exist for electrophoretic blots and microscopy (N). Additional points
- There should be a reference to any work outside of the current paper, if the object and/or image has been used elsewhere.
- There is a need for better captions that specify always experimental conditions, object, direction and resolution. Unzoomed controls and reason for the selection of certain object areas along with repeated experiments would be often helpful. The question is largely unsolved what constitutes a representative image?
- There is a need of professional integrity offices at universities and research centers.
- More attention by publishers is required. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines include a flowchart on suspected image manipulation.
- Accepted standards and current practices need to be continuously revised.
As a further reference see also the Word Press Photo rules.
Postscript 4 Jan 2022
inherently dishonest people
Gemma Conroy about a new study by Satalkar and Shaw
More training and clear guidelines are favoured as fixes for bad research practices, but a new study suggests that these efforts are wasted if researchers are inherently dishonest.
The study published in BMC Medical Ethics revealed that childhood education and personality traits have a greater influence on how researchers conduct their work than formal training in research integrity.
Research integrity is an ever expanding field
The few empirical articles that examined determinants of misconduct found that problems from the research system (e.g., pressure, competition) were most likely to cause inadequate research practices. Paradoxically, the majority of empirical articles proposing approaches to foster integrity focused on techniques to build researchers’ awareness and compliance rather than techniques to change the research system.
Discussing science fraud, techniques in seminars may even have adverse effect as summarized by Resnik.
While most people would endorse this as a worth-while goal, research has produced little evidence that RCR education actually helps to achieve it … Moreover, some studies have shown that RCR education may be associated with certain of unethical attitudes or misbehaviors.
According to Anderson training in research ethics was positively associated with problematic behavior. Inherently dishonest people remain dishonest.
So if we believe Satalkar, Bonn, Resnik and Anderson – the system has to change with a high entry gate for dishonest people.
Profiziert
Diet Stellungnahme “Eingriffe in die menschliche Keimbahn” des deutschen Ethikrates 2019 hat auf S. 86 einen netten Schreibfehler, den das Redaktionsteam und alle 26 Autoren übersehen haben.
Seit der wissenschaftlich-industriellen Revolution ist „moderne“ Wissenschaft und Technik durch eine zweifache Komplikation ausgezeichnet: Die technikgestützte Handlung erfüllt zum einen als Mittel ihren Zweck nur noch mit einer gewissen Wahrscheinlichkeit, unter anderem deshalb, weil zwischen Ausgangssituation und Endzweck oft viele Vermittlungsstufen mit unübersehbaren Folgen liegen (Handeln unter Bedingungen der Unsicherheit).
Zum anderen gilt: Wer die Gefahren bei wissenschaftlich-technischen Prozessen trägt, profiziert nicht automatisch auch davon (Handeln unter Bedingungen der Ungleichheit der Betroffenen). Darüber hinaus stellt sich das Problem, dass manche Folgen eines Handelns – etwa aufgrund unüberschaubarer Wechselwirkungen mit anderen Handlungen oder Einflussfaktoren – gänzlich unabwägbar sein können (Handeln unter Bedingungen der Unabwägbarkeit der Folgen).
profiziert? Zuerst dachte ich an provoziert oder profiliert. Mit dem weiteren Verlauf ist aber dann doch eher profitiert gemeint. Vielleicht ist es aber ein Neologismus des Ethikrates der “für den allgemeinen Gebrauch eine sprachliche Neuprägung” erwägt? Dass man das Thema im Sinn von Lindner FDP den Profi–Profs überlassen soll?
An open letter to Dr. Hurlbut
Dear Dr Hurlbut,
given your previous involvement in the experiment of He Jiankui, I would like to make a proposal to you.
As a genetic epidemiologist, I have looked into the technical details of Dr. He’s presentation in Hong Kong. I am deeply concerned about the two girls and and what the international community could do for the “CCR5 twins” but also for the “PCSK9 baby” that will be born in about 10 weeks.
As the official Chinese investigation report leaves a lot of open question, I suggest that an international commission including also scientists and medical doctors from abroad should examine these children. Very much in accordance to the International Atomic Energy Agency there should a multidisciplinary group be built that is allowed to do on-site visits. While I agree with many other ethicists and geneticists that the children and their parents should not be exposed to the public, I think a group of experts need to examine the children and resequence their genomes to offer them the best care available.
We are not sure if the twins are still alive as a Chinese magazine already wrote last December
Eugenics is a word many associate with America’s historical bans on interracial marriage, Nazi Germany’s quest for Aryan supremacy, and stolen Australian Aboriginal children. Its connection to China’s one-child policy is less obvious, but no less potent. Children were seen as valuable resources, and when only one child was permitted per family, there was tremendous pressure to secure the optimal outcome … “Deformed fetuses” are encouraged to be terminated in China because people who require extra care and function outside conventional norms are largely viewed as burdens on society and the family. In lower tier cities, disabled children are often hidden from view and afforded little dignity or opportunities for upward mobility. When people with disabilities are not being pitied as subhuman, those who manage to overcome societal judgment and obstacles are then trotted out as inspiration porn for able-bodied people. Many Chinese people struggle to see beyond someone’s disability. The Chinese word for “disabled” is made of up characters that mean “incomplete/broken” and “disease/suffering,” leaving little room for a fulfilling existence.
As a genetic community we owe something to these children as we collected all those genomic data and developed also the tools to modify a genome but we did not clearly voice our concerns of a germline based therapy. Based on a previous analysis I am sure that the two girls will have many more deficits than are currently known.
Knowing more about the details would be a further warning sign of doing such experiments.
Kind regards
MW
Inglehart–Welzel Cultural Map
The plot above is the result of the “World Value Survey”. It assumes that there are two major dimensions of cross cultural variation in the world: “Traditional values versus secular-rational values” and “Survival values versus self-expression values”.
Sounds interesting at least for 3 seconds. Then we are discovering the strange axis labels – the opposite of tradition is lost tradition not rational value. The authors explain traditional values by the importance of religion, parent-child ties, deference to authority and traditional family values. People who embrace these values also reject divorce, abortion, euthanasia and suicide. These societies have high levels of national pride and a nationalistic outlook.
As a protestant, Inglehart–Welzel put me top right “having less or no traditional values, no religion, parent-child ties, no need for authority and traditional family values”. According to them I am “pro divorce, abortion, euthanasia and suicide with low level of national pride” – which is clearly wrong, just by a simple example.
I am quite sure that a single item analysis – lets say divorce rate vs Gross Domestic Product would compare countries much better. But do we even need such kind of science? The whole scheme is dangerously simplified – producing more stereotypes that I would have expected from any political scientists.
Damit stoße ich nun wieder an ihre alte Frage an mich: wie ich mich denn in dieser Zeit als Deutscher fühle? Meine Antwort muß sein: Gar nicht. So wie Hölderlin einst sagte, es sei die Zeit der Könige nicht mehr, so ist nun die Zeit der Völker nicht mehr. (Heinrich Blücher)
Datenschutzethik ?
Peter Dabrock bevorzugt Apple Produkte, sogar imm er dabei am Handgelenk.
Es ist ja auch praktisch, immer informiert zu sein. Dass dann bei der Gelegenheit dann auch andere informiert werden, worüber man selbst informiert ist, nun das liegt in der Natur der Sache, aber wir haben ja einen guten Datenschutz, so sein Credo.
Wir wollen ja die Vorteile, so jedenfalls seine Aussage nach dem Besuch des Silicon Valley, von dem er mit leuchtenden Augen in Tutzing im November 2018 berichtet hat.
Die Diskussion dazu war kurz, aber ich habe mich dann doch noch zu Wort gemeldet:
… Mit ein paar Tagen Abstand ist mir doch etwas mulmig mit einigen Ihrer Thesen … Es ist illusorisch, dass man den Daten „output“ kontrollieren kann, allenfalls den Daten „input“.
Der Hackerangriff auf den Bundestag oder auf das Kreiskrankenhaus Fürstenfeldbruck (das gerade tagelang stillgelegt war) – so recht Ahnung hat ja niemand mehr von Computern und Netzwerken.
Datenvermeidung ist im übrigen nicht meine fixe Idee, sondern steht im BDSG … Es sollte nun nicht das übliche Totschlag Argument sein, aber die Deutschen haben ihre eigene Geschichte. Es ist nicht mal ein Menschenleben her, da wissen schon viele nicht mehr, dass der Holocaust mit einer Stricknadel begann.
Und das ist auch der Grund warum die Deutschen auch nicht immer mit machen, selbst bei Aktionen, die an sich sinnvoll wären … Ich sehe da auch kein besonderes Misstrauen in Deutschland, sondern eine vernünftige Nutzen / Schaden Abwägung. Ein Frage des Kontextes oder Framings wie Sie gesagt haben.
Und was passiert mit Ihren ganzen Daten wenn sich auf einmal sich das Blatt in der Politik wendet, die Rechten wieder die Überhand gewinnen, die PiS in Polen, die AfD in Deutschland, die Fidesz in Ungarn, die Lega in Italien?
Oder wenn direkt vor Ihrer Haustür ein Beamter mit dem bayrischen Polizeiaufgabengesetz in der Hand steht und eine “drohende Gefahr“ wittert?
Es geht gerade mal ein paar Tage – und schon wieder sind Firmen mit den besten Rechenzentren der Welt nicht in der Lage, die Datensicherheit zu garantieren, z. B. Facebook
Facebook soll sensible Nutzerdaten an ausgewählte Werbekunden weitergegeben haben, darunter Netflix, Tinder und Airbnb. Dies berichtet die Washington Post auf Grundlage eines mehr als 200-seitigen Ermittlungsberichts aus Großbritannien.
oder Amazon
Amazon hat einem Kunden in Deutschland, der Auskunft über die von ihm gespeicherten Daten haben wollte, 1700 Sprachdateien zugeschickt. Allerdings besitzt dieser Kunde überhaupt keinen Sprachassistenten, die Dateien stammten von einer ganz anderen Person.
oder Adobe mit 150 Millionen Datensätzen. Das waren alles nur die “Versehen”. Dabei geht die Strategie weltweit zur totalen Überwachung, nicht nur in China, sondern auch in den USA und Frankreich.
CLV, das steht für “customer lifetime value”, zu Deutsch: “Kundenlebenszeitwert” – ein neues machtvolles Marketinginstrument, das Unternehmen in den Vereinigten Staaten so elektrisiert wie es Verbraucherschützer alarmiert, denn einen ähnlich groß angelegten Angriff auf die Privatsphäre von Millionen Flug-, Telefon-, Einzelhandels- und sonstigen Kunden dürfte es selbst in der US-Wirtschaftsgeschichte mit ihren dauernden Datenskandalen bisher nicht gegeben haben. Immer mehr Firmen lassen anhand Dutzender, Hunderter, gar Tausender persönlichen Daten berechnen, wie viel ihnen ein einzelner Käufer über sein gesamtes “Kundenleben” wohl in Dollar und Cent einbringen wird.
Trotzdem legt Dabrock nochmal nach auf evangelisch.de am 7.2.2019
Der Ethikratsvorsitzende fügte hinzu, dass der Oxforder Philosoph Luciano Floridi eine treffende Charakterisierung der aktuellen Epoche mit dem Begriff “Onlife” gefunden habe. Dieser mache deutlich, dass man in der heutigen Zeit gar nicht mehr zwischen online und offline unterscheiden könne. Offline sei inzwischen nichts anderes als ein avantgardistischer Lebensstil.
Wir wissen nun auch wieso. Der Tagesspiegel schreibt am 9. April 2019 über das besondere Verhältnis von Facebook und Dabrock
Für seinen Besuch in Berlin hat Mark Zuckerberg vergangene Woche die Gesprächspartner genau ausgewählt: Der Facebook-Chef traf am Montag unter anderem CDU-Chefin Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, den Grünen-Chef Robert Habeck, mit Verbraucherschutzministerin Katarina Barley (SPD) gab es 45 Minuten. Und am Vormittag gleich eineinhalb Stunden für ein Gespräch mit Wissenschaftlern, darunter mit Peter Dabrock, dem Vorsitzenden des Deutschen Ethikrates, der Regierung und Bundestag in ethischen Fragen berät. Doch nicht nur die Kanzlerin mit ihrem Kabinett und die Volksvertreter schätzen Dabrocks Rat – sondern auch Firmen wie Facebook. Seit Januar 2018 leitet Dabrock (55), Professor für Systematische Theologie an der Universität Erlangen, den so genannten „Facebook-Gesprächskreis: Digitalität & Verantwortung“. Die Runde wurde auf Initiative von Facebook hin gegründet, „in enger Zusammenarbeit“ mit Dabrock als dem Vorsitzenden des Ethikrates, heißt es in einer Mitteilung von Facebook zur konstituierenden Sitzung.
Der chinesische Menschenversuch
This content has restricted access, please type the password below and get access.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104
Ich bin nur dann für technische Neuerungen, wenn sie im Einklang mit sozialen Werten stehen
Aus einer Umfrage (Technikradar acatech 2018)
Gene Doping using CRISPR/Cas
After some first experiments in human embryos, there is a new Chinese paper in the Journal of Molecular Biology showing that also gene doping is possible in mammals. Myostatin deficiency otherwise leads to some really impressive super strength children while it is now possible to knockout this gene artificially. Hopefully the WADA will test for myostatin gene activity in Rio 2016!
Addendum 4 Dec15: An International Summit Statement On Human Gene Editing says
It would be irresponsible to proceed with any clinical use of germline editing unless and until (i) the relevant safety and efficacy issues have been resolved, based on appropriate understanding and balancing of risks, potential benefits, and alternatives, and (ii) there is broad societal consensus about the appropriateness of the proposed application.
Both conditions are unlikely to be ever met.
Informed Consent
IC is a vanishing concept despite our efforts in the past. It could be so easy as explained in this tea video.
Believe it or not – Genetic testing is not ready for widespread use
When I moved from the theological seminar to the medical faculty of Marburg University, I expected to move from a rather liberal but largely closed belief system to a rational environment where belief does not play a central role. It took me only a few years to recognize my misunderstanding. Medicine represents an even more closed belief system („peer review“) than I encountered in theology. There are so many assumptions in daily medical practice that have never been formally tested.
It is commonly assumed that genetic testing is ready for widespread use. But is it true? The authoritative Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has in an excellent contribution about the ethics of belief that there is a „cluster of questions at the intersection of epistemology, philosophy of mind, psychology, and ethics“. And even more
Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn’t involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time … Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology.
Do you want to know your full genome sequence? And do you want it to be published on the internet? Or do you think this is private information that should stay within your body cells where it had been encrypted since the origin of humans? Before we look at any belief surrounding genetic testing, we may have to take a small side-step. Yes, of course, we are dealing here in the first instance with a large industry that has strong commercial interest in genetic testing. Equipment companies selling chemistry and scanners want to increase their sales figures. Insurance companies need data for their policy calculations. Doctors and hospitals want to maximize their income by customer retention. Universities want to increase their attraction by showcasing fancy technology. Even patient advocacy groups are not neutral as they act in the presumed interests of their members. While any of these interests may be good or bad, it is worth to note that the discussion is driven by commercial interests and not ethical convictions.
Having said that, we probably all agree that genetic testing is a research method: useful, interesting and promising to classify, prevent, predict, or treat disease ,. But even after many years it is still a research method of unclear scope, unclear benefit and unclear risks. Should genetic testing really been applied outside of supervised research just because of the economic pressure surrounding it?
I can not see so much benefit of DTC genetic testing right now while there are disturbing case studies how „ordinary humans“ are getting confused when genetic testing is done outside of a research setting. These reports show not only a crude misunderstanding of the predictive value of single nucleotide variants but also a plethora of adverse reactions on nagging questions that are posed but never answered. Some users complained about mix up of samples making even some the claimed success stories finding unknown family members („hey, bro“ ) questionable.
In the pre-internet age, there would have been an intense scientific discussion when a certain method is being ready for prime time. Such a method would have been limited to experts who know something about constraints of a research method, who know how to find additional information in the library or run further lab experiments when the knowledge is being limited. They could consult colleagues from other fields and eventually put these pieces into context. But only a few critical minds could do that, most of them with an academic training over many years.
This landscape has changed, radically changed. The majority of research papers is now being published online. There are no more fences, only a few toll gates, but no gatekeepers. While the church lost most of their authority during the age of enlightment, universities lost their primacy with the advent of the internet. Of course scientists are trying to get back in the discussion by submitting guidelines. I fear, however, that the public perception sees this a bit like in the famous Feynman quote being “as useful .. as ornithology is to birds.“ It is only when an agency like the FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues a warning, that genetic testing is being brought to a (preliminary) end.
The autonomous individual falls back mainly to the information channel he can easily use: the internet search engine. The belief of an individual about the usefulness of genetic testing is influenced by quick google searches showing some bystander comments in an online forum. There is an endless skimming of newsfeeds, magazines and scientific papers. Everything is done at high speed but at the uppermost surface. It reminds me a bit about the 2010 EDGE question „How is the internet changing the way you think“ :
Playwright Richard Foreman asks about the replacement of complex inner density with a new kind of self-evolving under the pressure of information overload and the technology of the “instantly available”. Is it a new self? Are we becoming Pancake People — spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.
Technology analyst Nicholas Carr wrote the most notable of many magazine and newspaper pieces asking “Is Google Making Us Stupid”. Has the use of the Web made it impossible for us to read long pieces of writing?
…
Social software guru Clay Shirky notes that people are reading more than ever but the return of reading has not brought about the return of the cultural icons we’d been emptily praising all these years. …
Frank Schirrmacher, [former ]Feuilleton Editor and Co-Publisher of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, has noticed that we are apparently now in a situation where modern technology is changing the way people behave, people talk, people react, people think, and people remember. Are we turning into a new species — informavores? — he asks.
The belief about benefits of DTC genetic testing is certainly not influenced by any European or American Scientific Society Ethics Committee. It is influenced by those brief sometimes adequate, sometimes inadequate information pieces in the internet , TV, radio or newspaper snippets.
When it comes to any direct action (blood drawing, selection of a specific laboratory, test system employed, readout and interpretation of results) the patient belief’ is further shaped by the doctors belief system. A detailed description of the attitude towards genetic testing, in particular in the relationship between doctor and patient, would be an enormous enterprise, needing a large cluster of experts at the intersection of epistemology, philosophy of mind, psychology, and ethics, as well as social scientists, biologists, among others. And who will even judge what is a correct assumption? Is a certain genetic variant really a pathogenetic variant? Even the most advanced attempts so far, just lists bullet points only.
Believe it or not, genetic testing for health related outcomes is still a research method.
References
 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief
 http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8685.full
 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1840236
 http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v34/n4/abs/ng0803-347.html
 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/science/i-had-my-dna-picture-taken-with-varying-results.html?ref=science&_r=0
 http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jun/08/genome-sequenced
 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-15/harvard-mapping-my-dna-turns-scary-as-threatening-gene-emerges.html
 http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-57223342.html
 http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/23andme-gentest-firma-vertauscht-dna-ergebnisse-ihrer-kunden-a-699436.html

 http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2013/ucm376296.htm
 http://edge.org/annual-question/how-is-the-internet-changing-the-way-you-think
 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v508/n7497/full/nature13127.html