Disease Detection So Desirable

Maria Kozdroy

Blog #15

10-26-14

Disclaimer: this blog is to be used as a response to class discussion and readings.

Disease Detection So Desirable

            If you are feeling very strange and sick, imagine finding out your disease within one hour after a test.  And better yet, you do not even need to go to a doctor to find out.  With the Ebola hype occurring, Keith Pardee, Ph.D, and Alex Green, Ph.D, from the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University, have come up with Toehold Switches: De–Novo–Designed Regulators of Gene Expression.  These switches are simple pieces of paper, with embedded effective synthetic gene networks that can determine if one has Ebola or not.  Seems very cool, right?  But is it safe?  In this post, I am going to argue that the safety and security factors of new synthetic biology advancements need to be better understood by more citizens of all social classes, before anyone should actually use the product, such as the Toehold Switch.  Patients should understand what they are about to do to themselves because if any security breaches happen there after, there is no turning back, and any information leaked will be handled unfairly by the hackers.

In the scholarly article Biology’s Brave New World by Laurie Garrett, she mentions that “while virtually all current laws in this field, both local and global, restrict and track organisms of concern (such as, say, the Ebola virus), tracking information is all but impossible.  Code can be buried anywhere—al Qaeda operatives have hidden attack instructions inside porn videos, and a seemingly innocent tweet could direct readers to an obscure Internet location containing genomic code ready to be downloaded to a 3-D printer.”

Synthetic biology has many security problems in addition to its own biological problems.  The Toehold Switches, have problems attached to them such as the ones stated above.  Government is trying to eliminate these infractions to law, but the pace of technology is leaving government struggling, with more and more problems evolving daily.  On an optimistic side disregarding legacy thinking, or the belief that society should stay at the point at which to stop more advancements from happening, these Toehold Switches need to be handled in a very precautionary way.   The consumer should understand that not all risks have been detected with the product to soon be used and should only use the product under own risk.  However, how many people in the world today really would understand the risks that this product entails? 

            Due to high costs of college, less young adults are attending universities.  The science behind the Toehold Switches exceeds the knowledge of an average person, one that graduates from high school, with or without a few years of college, and now working.  The Toehold Switches seem very catchy and will attract many people to use this product, yet not comprehend half as many of the consequences attached to it.  If one does use the Toehold Switch, and has some security information obtained by a hacker, it will be very difficult for the consumer to figure out where their information went and how they were attacked.  Hacking, too, is a difficult concept to be understood by the average person, and usually people only understand the superficial obvious causes and effects of it.

            Perhaps, if one does understand the potential risks with Toehold Switches, and wants to use it to test to see if they do have the Ebola virus, then there is nothing stopping them, as government only has a say in the decisions one makes whether right or wrong.  Not many people have used the Toehold Switches, and for that reason, upon using it one may be targeted by outside organizations, looking to steal information or not.  I believe it would be best to completely avoid this product at all costs to make sure no more secure information is passed along, than what has already been perhaps leaked to 3rd party organizations by answering surveys, etc.

            Technology is changing at a pace at which the number of people that use a product and understand how it works and the after effects of it, is decreasing rapidly.  Does this mean only erudite individuals should use the product?  Guaranteed many of which would probably opt out due to a better comprehensive knowledge of the product.  What if free classes are offered by the government to influence potential consumers of the switches to gain an understanding of the consequences of them?  Perhaps, over time counter-intuitive thinking will take precedence, providing a clearer understanding to more individuals. 

Sources:

“Synthetic biology on ordinary paper, results off the page” WYSS Institute, October 23, 2014, http://wyss.harvard.edu/viewpressrelease/174/

Laurie Garrett, Biology’s Brave New World, 2013