--Work: Same old, same old. I'm again working as a dev on the same feature I've done my last two contracts because I know it well, with occasional excursions into other parts of the product whenever they're shorthanded. I don't care, I'm a mercenary, that's what I get paid for. Not very interesting, but worth it in the end.
--PU: This is what I love working on. Nights and weekends, this is my baby. Ruby on Rails is great (mostly), and I've been working my way through the entire back catalogue of the RoR podcast. (Secretly I'm hoping that I and PU will be on the podcast next year, maybe at RailsConf, which I'll probably attend next year. :P ) It's going well, almost to minimally feature complete, and I'm hoping to open it up to a private beta within the next month or two. I'm looking into hosting options (heroku is fucking awesome, BTW, though I don't know if that will be my choice or not yet), and have bug tracking set up for the private beta. Should be interesting, this will be my first foray into launching a webapp/company on my own, though I've done both before with others.
--Ankle: I'm up to running/walking about 2 miles (one lap around our lake), and riding my road bike about 10 miles (on a stationary trainer). I could probably do more, but I'm trying to work back into things gradually. It gets sore and swollen, but according to the Dr is right on track. Unfortunately, I'm just in time for winter in Seattle (aka The Rainy Darkness) so I doubt I'll be doing much more running. I can't risk slipping in the wet right now, and running in the dark just sucks. Luckily, with it cooling off, riding the road bike in the garage is much more appealing (too hot in the summer, especially with the multiple sclerosis heat issues I have). I actually like riding the bike in the garage because I can watch our portable DVD player and catch up on TV shows/movies Shannon doesn't like. ;)
Beyond all that, I've been reading and wanted to post some stuff here. My book du jour is Traffic, a book about research on (vehicle) traffic from all angles, which is quite interesting and up my alley so far. I have some stuff to post from that later, but for now I wanted to put in some magazine content.
The first is from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society's magazine Momentum because it's something I deal with all the time, and not something most people without MS would understand. Here's the intro (the whole article is here:
I used to take my good health so for granted I would sometimes be concerned with things that really weren’t that important. Having MS has helped improve my perspective. Now I know what’s really important. My mind is focused. My thoughts are clear. Whether I am in the Sistine Chapel or a Taco Bell, I always have the same thought: Where is the bathroom?
I realize that this is a little uncomfortable to talk about, so I’ll try to avoid obvious jokes. For example, this question may not be on your mind. It all depends
on where those nasty little lesions form, but most of us with MS struggle at least a bit with this.
Public restrooms cause me the most difficult problems. I know that when I decide to head for one, takeoff to touchdown will be exactly five minutes and 24 seconds. So I always ask where the restroom is when I enter a place. The knowledge may save crucial seconds later on. It’s a little like the times you go for a walk and have to decide the
precise moment when you are half-tired, so that you can turn around and get home when you are 100% tired but before you are too pooped. I always need to be five minutes and 24 seconds ahead of any bathroom emergency. I need to get there before I am pooped. So to speak.
The other thing I wanted to mention was an article in Technology Review, an excellent MIT rag about, well, technology. There was a recent article talking about personal genomics, which caught my eye because Shannon and I recently sent our samples off to 23 and me, and I was just stunned to hear that there's a controversy about such services. (Yeah, yeah, I'm kind of naive sometimes.) If somebody has the means and curiosity to sign up, what's the problem? (I guess beyond potential insurance implications, though I'm not too worried about that having a chronic condition already, and being very careful about my insurance coverage because of that.) This is a big quote, but I think worth reading. The whole article is here (free registration required).
In April, a startup company called Navigenics threw a swanky 10-day celebration in lower Manhattan to launch its highly publicized personal-genomics service, which offers genetic risk assessments for 21 complex health conditions--such as heart attack and diabetes--that are partly mediated by multiple genes. (I received complimentary genotyping from Navigenics; it normally costs $2,500.) Unbeknownst to attendees, the New York State Department of Health had sent a warning letter a few days earlier to the company and 22 others that offer similar products, telling them that they needed a permit before they could sell their services. New York-based party goers would be unable to partake in Navigenics' testing.
Indeed, both Navigenics and its main competitors--California's 23andMe and Iceland's deCode--have faced a stern backlash from health experts and regulators. All three companies use gene chip technology to scan an individual's genome, at a cost of $1,000 to $2,500, for variations that have been linked to diseases or to traits such as eye color and muscle strength. Understanding their risk for a disease, says Navigenics cofounder Dietrich Stephan, allows people to make plans, take preventive steps by altering their lifestyles (exercising and keeping the brain active, for example), and stay informed about new therapies. But making such tests available directly to consumers over the Internet, as these companies do, has aroused concern in both scientific and public-health circles. In their disclaimers, all three say that they are not offering medical advice or practicing medicine. But critics say that it's not just medicine, it's bad medicine.
In January, the New England Journal of Medicine outlined major concerns in an editorial titled "Letting the Genome Out of the Bottle." The tests, the journal charged, are not clinically validated--meaning that it's not clear exactly how predictive their results will be. What's more, a consumer who discovers a risk for a disease may not be able to do anything about it. The test results could lead to unnecessary anxiety--or, worse, to false confidence. Someone whose test indicates no predisposition to diabetes, for example, might abandon efforts to diet and exercise. In short, the journal concluded, doctors should tell patients that the information derived from these services is essentially useless and that people interested in their genetic data should "ask again in a few years."
In June, California followed New York's lead and sent cease-and-desist letters to 13 companies, including Navigenics, 23andMe, and deCode. The state complained that companies should not offer their tests directly to consumers without a physician's order; they were, according to an official at the California Department of Public Health, "scaring a lot of people to death." A few of the companies claimed to be in compliance with state law. Others stopped offering their services in California, at least temporarily.
The authorities' reaction is both wrongheaded and arrogant. Whatever their shortcomings (and they have plenty), these companies will not vanish. In a survey commissioned by the Personal Genome Project--a nonprofit effort led by Harvard University geneticist George Church, which seeks to better understand the relationship between genetic variation and human health--the vast majority of respondents were interested in gaining access to their genetic information. The National Geographic Society's Genographic Project, a global research study using genetics to shed light on ancient human migration, far exceeded its public-participation goals: 250,000 people signed up and paid $100 each for coarse-grained views of their genetic ancestry, compared with initial expectations of 100,000. We know that people want their genomic data; we need to learn why they want it, what they expect from it, and how they believe it should and shouldn't be regulated.
Posts
