Sample Commitment Statement Of An Individual Investigator To Institutional Human Sub: Fill & Download for Free

This is an interesting and dynamic area of academic research that brings together many current disciplines.In pragmatics (a linguistics sub-study) and discourse studies, hedging refers to rhetorical cues that limit, modify, or add nuance to statements. Such cues provide metaknowledge — that is, knowledge about the knowledge that is being communicated, or about the communicators, their degree of certainty or other qualifications, and the expected conduct of the discourse itself. Thus they help define the relationship of the communicators to the subject matter, the discourse, and each other. The broader topic of how hedging and other discourse modifiers work can be called metadiscourse.The study of hedging and other discourse modifiers within linguistics and discourse studies is evolving and developing new theories. Three approaches, from older to newer, are:Lexical linguistics: the study of hedges as a property of words, their “meanings”, the way they are used in discourse, and what they are presumed to signal. Sometimes, in general, it appears that …Computational linguistics: the use of natural language processing and machine learning to investigate patterns in large samples (corpuses) of text.Cognitive linguistics and social cognition: analysis of the mental and social functions of language use in the context of communication relationships.ArticlesHere is an annotated reference list of articles that provide research overviews or current work. Note: For brevity, I’ve removed some of the hedges in these abstracts. The “…” text used to contain Essentially our argument is that… This is because the purpose (rhetorical context) of Answers on Quora is different from that of academic publishing.What is metadiscourse?Metadiscourse is the interpersonal resources used to organize a discourse or the writer’s stance toward either its content or the reader. It is a way of looking at language use based on the fact that, as we speak or write, we monitor the possible responses of others, making decisions about the kind of effects we are having on our listeners or readers, and adjusting our language to best achieve our purposes. Metadiscourse seeks to capture something of the interactive character of communication…Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourseMetadiscourse refers to aspects of a text which explicitly organise the discourse, engage the audience and signal the writer's attitude. Its use by writers to guide readers and display an appropriate professional persona is an important aspect of persuasive writing. Its role in establishing and maintaining contact between the writer and the reader and between the writer and the message also makes it a central pragmatic concept... This paper seeks to show how the appropriate use of metadiscourse crucially depends on rhetorical context. The study identifies a taxonomy of metadiscourse functions and suggests that metadiscourse reflects one way in which context and linguistic meaning are integrated to allow readers to derive intended interpretations. It is argued that metadiscourse provides writers with a means of constructing appropriate contexts and alluding to shared disciplinary assumptions. The study of academic metadiscourse can therefore offer insights into our understanding of this concept and illuminate an important dimension of rhetorical variation among disciplinary communities.Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A ReappraisalMetadiscourse is self-reflective linguistic material referring to the evolving text and to the writer and imagined reader of that text. It is based on a view of writing as social engagement and in academic contexts reveals the ways that writers project themselves into their discourse to signal their attitude towards both the propositional content and the audience of the text. … Metadiscourse offers a way of understanding the interpersonal resources writers use to present propositional material and therefore a means of uncovering something of the rhetorical and social distinctiveness of disciplinary communities.Writing Without Conviction? Hedging in Science Research ArticlesHedging is a well-documented feature of spoken discourse as a result of its role in qualifying categorical commitment and facilitating discussion Its use in academic writing has received less attention, however, and we know little about the functions it serves in different research fields and particular genres Hedging is a significant communicative resource for academics since it both confirms the individual's professional persona and represents a critical element in the rhetorical means of gaining acceptance of claims. Hedges allow writers to anticipate possible opposition to claims by expressing statements with precision, caution, and diplomatic deference to the views of colleagues Based on a contextual analysis of 26 articles in molecular biology, this paper argues that hedging in scientific research writing cannot be fully understood in isolation from social and institutional contexts and suggests a pragmatic framework which reflects this interpretive environment.Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourseThis paper discusses how the communicative purpose of the different rhetoricalsections of research papers (RP) and case reports (CR) in medical English written discourse influences the frequency and category distribution of the modulation devices (hedges) … The choice of expression of tentativeness and flexibility is dictated by the general structure of the discourse, by its communicative purpose, by the level of claim the writers wish to make, and by the authors' pretension to universality and generalization… Hedging in scientific discourse is a necessary and vitally important skill.Socio-cognitive aspects of hedging in two legal discourse genresMost research on hedging approaches the phenomenon from either a textual or pragmatic perspective, and tends to compare the same genre across disciplines … The objective of this study was to analyse hedging in two legal written discourse genres, namely U.S. Supreme Court opinions and American law review articles, from a comprehensive, socio-cognitive, intra-disciplinary perspective.Pragmatic functions of hedges and politeness principlesFuzziness is one of the objective characteristics of human language, which makes language flexible and reliable. It’s helpful to keep communication more euphemistic and convincing. Hedges are core of fuzzy language and the study on hedges contributes to the understanding of the essence of languageThis is kind of/sort of interesting: variation in hedging in EnglishAn early-ish lexical analysis of hedgingA Hedging Annotation Scheme Focused on Epistemic Phrases for Informal LanguageMost existing annotation schemes for hedging were created to aid in the automatic identification of hedges in formal language styles, such as used in scholarly prose. Language with informal tone, typical in much web content, poses a challenge and provides illuminating case studies for the analysis of the use of hedges. We have analysed conversations from a web forum and identified the manners individuals express hedging through expressions which differ slightly regarding to their lexical form from hedges used in formal writing. Based on these observations, we propose an annotation scheme composed of three main categories of hedges where the main class comprises first person epistemic expressions that explicitly note an individual's involvement in what they express. We provide here an overview of our insights obtained by annotating a dataset of web forum posts according to this scheme. These observations will be useful in the design of automatic methods for the detection of hedges in texts in informal language.Pragmatics and Computational Linguistics (2003)An early overview of computational approaches to pragmatics in linguistics.Hedging: an exploratory study of authors’ and readers’ identification of ‘toning down’ in scientific textsThis one is somewhat unusual in that it takes an experimental approach.Recognizing speculative language in biomedical research articles: a linguistically motivated perspectiveDue to the nature of scientific methodology, research articles are rich in speculative and tentative statements, also known as hedges. We explore a linguistically motivated approach to the problem of recognizing such language in biomedical research articles. Our approach draws on prior linguistic work as well as existing lexical resources to create a dictionary of hedging cues and extends it by introducing syntactic patterns.Processes That Shape Conversation and Their Implications for Computational LinguisticsExperimental studies of interactive language use have shed light on the cognitive and interpersonal processes that shape conversation; corpora are the emergent products of these processes. I will survey studies that focus on under-modelled aspects of interactive language use, including the processing of spontaneous speech and disfluencies; metalinguistic displays such as hedges; interactive processes that affect choices of referring expressions; and how communication media shape conversations. The findings suggest some agendas for computational linguistics.The CoNLL-2010 Shared Task: Learning to Detect Hedges and their Scope in Natural Language TextThe CoNLL-2010 Shared Task was dedicated to the detection of uncertainty cues and their linguistic scope in natural language texts. The motivation behind this task was that distinguishing factual and uncertain information in texts is of essential importance in information extraction. This paper provides a general overview of the shared task, including the annotation protocols of the training and evaluation datasets, the exact task definitions, the evaluation metrics employed and the overall results. The paper concludes with an analysis of the prominent approaches and an overview of the systems submitted to the shared task.Computational Sociolinguistics: A SurveyLanguage is a social phenomenon and variation is inherent to its social nature. Recently, there has been a surge of interest within the computational linguistics (CL) community in the social dimension of language. In this article we present a survey of the emerging field of 'Computational Sociolinguistics' that reflects this increased interest. We aim to provide a comprehensive overview of CL research on sociolinguistic themes, featuring topics such as the relation between language and social identity, language use in social interaction and multilingual communication. Moreover , we demonstrate the potential for synergy between the research communities involved, by showing how the large-scale data-driven methods that are widely used in CL can complement existing sociolinguistic studies, and how sociolinguistics can inform and challenge the methods and assumptions employed in CL studies. We hope to convey the possible benefits of a closer collaboration between the two communities and conclude with a discussion of open challenges.Formalising Uncertainty: An Ontology of Reasoning, Certainty and AttributionTo enable better representations of biomedical argumentation over collections of research papers, we propose a model and a lightweight ontology to represent interpersonal, discourse-based, data-driven reasoning. This model is applied to a collection of scientific documents, to show how it can be applied in practice. We present three biomedical applications for this work, and suggest connections with other, existing, ontologies and reasoning tools. Specifically, this model offers a lightweight way to connect nano-publication-like formal representations to scientific papers written in natural language.Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stanceThis article offers a framework for analysing the linguistic resources of intersubjective positioning, meanings which have elsewhere been treated under such headings as modality, polarity, evidentiality, hedging, concession, intensification, attribution and consequentiality. Drawing inspiration from Bakhtin/Vološinov’s dialogic perspective, it proposes that this lexicogrammatically diverse grouping can be brought together on discourse semantic grounds, namely that they all provide the means for speakers/ writers to take a stance towards the various points-of-view or social positionings being referenced by the text and thereby to position themselves with respect to the other social subjects who hold those positions. The paper offers a typology of these resources, with categorizations attending to differences in the way the textual voice engages with the alternative voices and/or pointsof-view being referenced or activated by the text.Hedging in various settings (genres)A Comparative Genre Analysis of Hedging Expressions in Research ArticlesHedging in Newspaper DiscourseIMHO: An Exploratory Study of Hedging in Web ForumsDoing Well by Talking Good: A Topic Modelling-Assisted Discourse Study of Corporate Social Responsibility

The second demonstration of Bennett Greenspan’s expert life was motivated by a long-held enthusiasm for family history and impelled by a not really well disposed poke from an irritated life partner.It was the late 1990’s, and Greenspan’s 16-year-old organization, Industrial Photographic Supply, had quite recently been sold. He was buried in a sit still period between gigs when, one evening, his significant other returned home with an auto brimming with staple goods.“I opened up the cabinet, and it was a wreck,” he says. “The entire peeled tomatoes were on the best retire. Spaghetti sauce was on the following rack. You couldn’t discover the tomato glue, and tomato sauce was on an alternate retire yet. I asked my significant other, ‘Would you mind on the off chance that I redesigned your organizer?'”Huge oversight.“She revealed to me I should get golf or backpedal to my family history, however I expected to get the ‘swearword’ out of her kitchen.” Greenspan settled on the last mentioned. Long an eager writer of his family’s history (he initially outlined a family tree as a young person in 1965), Greenspan committed the following month to investigating the heredity of his solitary unmapped grandparent, just to chance upon an online scientist from Buenos Aires following a similar individual. It wasn’t some time before the match directed their endeavors to reveal a likely familial connection amongst them, and however they prevailing with regards to connecting their particular precursors to a similar town and set of surnames, they missed the mark concerning creating a solitary interfacing authentic record—at that point thought about the best quality level of lineage.The inquiry ordinarily would have halted there, notwithstanding a blasted of motivation on Greenspan’s part. “It occurred to me that I could utilize atomic science,” Greenspan says, as though it’s something he’s done as long as he can remember. But Greenspan isn’t a sub-atomic researcher. He doesn’t have a general science foundation. His four year certification is in political science, and at the time he’d spent the heft of his life offering photographic film. Be that as it may, he was resolved. Furthermore, he’s an insatiable peruser.Greenspan recollected a couple of studies he’d seen that utilized DNA to affirm suspected heredities. In 1997 specialists examined the Y chromosomes of Jewish men and found that individuals from the Cohanim, or Jewish clerics who claim to be relatives of Moses’ more established sibling Aaron, have particular hereditary attributes that propose they share a typical male progenitor who lived around 3,000 years back. A different report distributed a year later connected the cutting edge relatives of Sally Hemmings to Thomas Jefferson, apparently affirming verifiable doubt that Jefferson had fathered some of Hemmings’ kids. Maybe, Greenspan figured, he could utilize similar techniques to look for a hereditary connection amongst himself and his Argentine partner. He additionally thought about whether this journey could shape the establishment of a plan of action. He connected with Dr. Michael Hammer, creator of the Cohanim contemplate, with an arrangement to market DNA family line tests.Greenspan would offer the tests, and Hammer and the University of Arizona would play out the investigation. The organization demonstrated so fruitful that Greenspan in the long run opened his own lab organization in Houston to expand handling volume. About two decades later his organization, Gene by Gene, offers three sorts of hereditary parentage tests through a backup, Family Tree DNA, and performs hereditary examination for a large group of contenders.Greenspan’s thought enamored lineage fans and has been replicated by reams of contenders, some of which have scaled gigantically. One industry preview, distributed by Credence Research last May, found that the market for coordinate to-purchaser hereditary testing topped $70 million out of 2015 and is required to become almost fivefold to $240 million by 2022. AncestryDNA, apparently the most noticeable player in the shopper heritage space, sold an expected 1.5 million units of its at-home testing pack over the 2017 Black Friday end of the week.Some portion of the business’ development is inferable from mechanical achievements. Greenspan’s organization started by offering Y-chromosome testing, which follows just direct male genealogies. The consequent improvement of a test for autosomal (nonsex chromosomes) DNA enables geneticists to make connects between far off relations. This more extensive test is generally what backs the present family line offerings.Greenspan’s thought has additionally advanced to include items he never longed for advertising.The same hereditary material buyers submit to decide their family line can yield troves of data about a man’s physical characteristics. 23andMe, a main opponent to AncestryDNA, whose Health + Ancestry Personal Genetic Service was one of Amazon’s best five 2017 Black Friday things, offers units that can uncover inclination to hereditary sicknesses, for example, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Different contenders are pitching DNA testing as a way to tweak and upgrade way of life angles. Everything from ideal rest calendars to wine inclinations, some say, are composed in a man’s DNA and can be sussed out with a basic test. On the off chance that buyers could outfit and apply bits of knowledge about their science caught in their own DNA, this line of reasoning goes, their potential for self-change would soar.With guarantees like these, numerous trust DNA experiences are ready to end up an extraordinary driver of buyer conduct. “I realized that DNA testing would have been a major ordeal. … In any case, I didn’t understand it would end up omnipresent to such an extent that each and every individual would in the long run wind up with a DNA test, similarly as they will wind up with a cellphone,” Greenspan says.That is as yet a major assuming, however. Indeed, even as the field of customer hereditary qualities approaches across the board social reverberation, specialists are scrutinizing the science behind a portion of the items. What’s more, as DNA-gathering organizations begin hereditary data as they would some other bit of shopper information, government guard dogs are investigating the training. These traps, if not appropriately explored, convey the possibility to squash the market for customer hereditary qualities similarly as it’s on the incline of a leap forward. So far, the dangers aren’t frightening off any go getters.Purchaser DNA testing for the world’s biggest revenue driven lineage organization, Ancestry (parent organization of AncestryDNA), works this way: Consumers arrange accumulation units on the web, store a teaspoon of salivation into a plastic tube, blend it with a holding operator and mail it to a research center for investigation. As they anticipate their outcomes, which are regularly conveyed in four to a month and a half, they can scan for the source of their last name or start mapping family trees utilizing customary ancestry techniques on the organization’s site.Not at all like Greenspan’s underlying items, AncestryDNA doesn’t imply to connect people with particular progenitors. Or maybe, it gives appraisals of a man’s ethnicity, demonstrating the locales of the world where their progenitors once lived. The administration likewise checks a man’s example against the 6 million clients put away in its DNA database to decide if there are any familial connections between clients.That capacity to offer customers a significant feeling of self makes a remarkable showcasing recommendation that has enabled the administration to flourish, says Ancestry’s VP of U.S. showcasing, Caroline Sheu.“DNA testing is not any more a specialty premium, it’s a mass shopper advertise with a huge number of individuals needing to encounter the candidly intense, invigorating disclosures that can originate from basically spitting in a tube,” Sheu said through email. “Our item is in a social and human space that not very many brands are in. We’re matching science and innovation with imaginative, passionate promoting methodologies to start another exchange concentrated on the transaction of hereditary qualities and culture.”Obviously, it doesn’t hurt that Ancestry appreciates a $175 million showcasing spending plan to push that message. A year prior, the greater part of its showcasing dollars were spent on TV promoting, yet with the landing of previous Johnson and Johnson executive Vineet Mehra as CMO in mid 2017, the organization conveyed another procedure that saw heavier interests in automatic, social, influencer and versatile classes. Mehra’s onboarding was immediately trailed by the arrangement of Droga5 New York as Ancestry’s lead innovative organization.Lineage’s overwhelming promoting ventures underscore the high-stakes maneuvering occurring in the heritage showcase. DNA databases are at a premium, not as a result of what they can inform specialists concerning anthropological examples, but since of what they say in regards to purchasers’ way of life attributes.Consider the accompanying arrangement of inquiries Ancestry solicits as part from a beta task to find out about shared hereditary characteristics:• Are you a greater amount of an outgoing individual or a contemplative person?• Are you a vegan?• Do you get a kick out of the chance to go to donning occasions?• Do you play a melodic instrument?• Do you consume when you don’t wear sunscreen?Advertisers will on the double handle the pertinence of these overviews. The information assembled can be utilized to manufacture personas and educate battles. Be that as it may, what happens when these identity qualities are connected to DNA profiles? The appropriate response is found in the field of genomics, which considers how connections all through the whole human genome impact self-improvement, as opposed to hunting down a particular quality that decides a specific characteristic.“Genomics is the following significant purchaser market, and it will change the greater part of our lives,” Sheu composed. “We are driving this upset and give chances to any individual who needs to assume a key part in building this new wilderness.”Genomic testing was the bread and butter of 23andMe when it launched in 2008, offering clients a battery of screenings to determine their propensity to develop more than 90 genetic-related conditions, such as migraines and baldness. And while that remains true today, a 2013 ruling by the Food and Drug Administration curtailed several of the company’s offerings, limiting its scope and confining it more narrowly to the ancestry space. That changed last April when the FDA revisited its 23andMe decision and allowed the company to market 10 tests for inheritable genetic conditions. Following that high note, 2017 closed with the news that 23andMe is embarking on one of its most ambitious projects yet: offering 1.3 million current customers the ability to participate in a weight-loss study searching for a link between genomes and diet success.After initially agreeing to answer questions for this story, 23andMe communication manager Christine Pai stopped responding to repeated requests for comment.The sum of these moves suggests the market for consumer DNA tests is moving beyond ancestry into the realm of health care-adjacent products. 23andMe might be first, but it won’t be alone for long. Ancestry’s Sheu wrote there is “nothing to report today” in regard to potential steps her company might take into lifestyle and wellness genomics, but she also admits the company is looking at ways to integrate health information over the long-term, a sentiment that is echoed by Ancestry’s chief privacy officer, Eric Heath. “We have expressed interest in the health space,” Heath says, “but we are not doing that now.”As genetic testing companies fight for market share, a promising model is emerging for startups to enter the DNA insights space. Helix is billed as the world’s first DNA app store. For $80, users can sequence their DNA and store it in the Helix market. Once their genetic code is uploaded, users can pay individual apps to scan bits of their DNA to produce specialized insights. Helix now offers ancestry mapping de rigueur, but the full range of apps display variety normally found in shopping malls and range from serious to silly. One fitness tracker creates workouts customized to users’ DNA readings. A family-focused app lets mothers test the amount of a certain omega-3 fatty acid present in their breast milk. The most fanciful offering eschews the personal improvement pitch altogether. It’s a fashion app that knits scarfs reflecting the unique sequential pattern formed by the four base enzymes found in users’ DNA.“The Helix: Discover your DNA story - Helix store was created to give each individual a choice in how they engage with their DNA,” says Elissa Levin, director of policy and genomic services for Helix. “For some, they only want to know the health-related insights. For others, they just want to start with something fun, like ancestry or a personalized scarf, and then at another point in their lives, they may have a need or newfound interest in accessing insights that tell them more about their health or nutrition.”Helix formed three years ago using a $100 million grant from Illumina, a global leader in DNA sequencing. Many business metrics are still being kept secret. Levin won’t say how many users have purchased apps on the market, nor how large Helix’s database of sequenced DNA samples is. What she will say is the Helix store currently lists more than 30 products for 15 different partner companies.One such partner is Exploragen. Its debut app, SlumberType, uses Helix’s sequenced DNA to determine what it claims is a person’s optimal sleep schedule. Society has long promoted the concepts of morning people and night owls, believing certain people are more suited for activity at different times of the day. Exploragen’s value proposition lies in addressing the uncertainty over these distinctions on an individual basis.“There are many DNA variations that are thought to be important in influencing how well or how long a person sleeps,” says Exploragen CEO Ronnie Andrews. “About 30% to 40% of the variance in people’s sleep patterns is determined by DNA while the rest is influenced by other factors such as age, environment and lifestyle.”SlumberType needs access to DNA to read gene variants associated with certain sleep traits, such as sleep onset latency, or how long it takes someone to fall asleep after shutting their eyes. From there, it classifies people into one of four categories—roosters, bees, fireflies or owls—and provides insights into how best to plan a day (and night) around this category. Like Levin, Andrews won’t say how SlumberType is performing, other than to say he’s excited by the response. Exploragen plans to release a second app in 2018, which will allow people to track how their bodies respond to caffeine. After that, Andrews saysExploragen is still working on its roadmap for the ensuing years.“Our goal is to develop apps that are not only educational but engaging as well with actionable tools and insightful features that keep customers continuously exploring their biology and habits,” he says. “Consumer genomics is at a tipping point, where it becomes a normal, everyday thing to query your DNA for answers that can positively impact your life. Today, the question might be: Where did my ancestors come from? Tomorrow, it might be: What should I have for lunch, or how much coffee is too much coffee?”There’s a flip side to the proliferation of these genomics tools, however, that marketers will need to address. As genomics applications trickle ever closer to informing consumer decisions, their scientific legitimacy is attracting skepticism. Put bluntly, there’s a whiff of pseudoscience emanating from some of the more outrageous offerings that threatens to torpedo consumer genomics’ budding trajectory. Helix was a target of derisive skepticism in October when Eric Topol, a prominent cardiologist, took to Twitter to add up the cost of Helix store apps he believes lack sound science or convincing data. “Total cost = $1,900; Value = 0,” he tweeted.Three days later, during an episode of “The Late Show,” comedian Stephen Colbert mocked Wine Explorer, an app sold on Helix that recommends wine based on genetic analysis. “I’m getting notes of almond, black currant and total bullshit,” he intoned while sniffing a glass of red wine.Levin is aware of the image problem, which she says stems from people confusing serious apps with ones meant for entertainment. She also vouches for the science behind Wine Explorer.“[The app maker] performed a research study to explore variations in taste and smell genes along with self-reported food preferences,” she says. “The outcome was an algorithm that can take these factors and tell you the characteristics of wines that suit your genetic palate. Wine Explorer not only highlights these preferences but then connects you with unique wines that meet those preferences. It’s a little bit genetic, and a lot of fun—not to mention a great way for people who are not yet motivated to learn health insights to access the power of their DNA.”But soundness of principle is only the second-biggest obstacle impeding widespread adoption of consumer genomics. By far, the most significant concern is privacy. Questions about user privacy have existed for as long as DNA testing has been commercially available. When Greenspan brought the first genetic ancestry test to market, consumers peppered him with dozens of concerns about the fate of their DNA sample. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine a more sensitive type of data than DNA. Just using consumer DNA for its marketed purposes could expose deeply sensitive, legally protected information such as race and health status. And though providing salvia samples for diagnostic purposes would trigger Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act protection, submitting spit tests to obtain ancestry or other genetic information is not subject to the same legislation.This allows consumer genetics companies to treat DNA like typical consumer data, which they can sell to third parties in anonymized, aggregate form. 23andMe has two such research partnerships with drug companies Pfizer and Genentech, and Ancestry has a similar agreement with Calico, a longevity-focused subsidiary of Google parent company Alphabet. Ancestry’s Heath notes that individuals can opt to not include their DNA in the aggregate samples and still use the service. He also says that aggregate DNA-sharing agreements are not the company’s top priority.“Generally, [third parties] come to us,” Heath says. “Unlike other DNA testing providers, [selling aggregate data] is not a main source of revenue for us. This is opportunistic engagement with companies or institutions that are researching important aspects of genetic science that, if they fit within the protocol, we will entertain.”Heath is also adamant that there are some parties that Ancestry refuses to sell to: insurers, employers or third-party marketers, for example. His assurances, as well as those given by competitors, have yet to be enough for Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., however.In November 2017, the Senate minority leader held a press conference where he pressed the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the privacy policies of consumer DNA kits and ensure policies are fair and transparent.Heath believes Schumer’s actions were unnecessary. “I think Sen. Schumer’s comments may not have been fully researched because we’re already doing a lot of what he was hoping to get the FTC involved in doing,” he says. “Our brand has a pretty high degree of trust, and we are giving users control of their data. … We’re meeting our customers’ expectations, we’re meeting the legal requirements, and we’re meeting the market’s expectations as well.”Nevertheless, Ancestry updated its privacy statement two weeks after Schumer’s press conference. FTC spokeswoman Juliana Gruenwald declined to confirm whether the agency would act on Schumer’s request, citing organizational policy not to comment on the existence of investigations. But she referred to a blog post that highlighted a 2014 settlement with the producer of genetically customized nutritional supplements who failed to protect personal genetic information, among other transgressions.Amid the delicate landscape of consumer data, there’s at least one company that has struck out the other way: Greenspan’s Family Tree DNA. The same day Schumer called for tougher FTC standards, Family Tree DNA unveiled a media campaign vowing to never sell consumers’ genetic data to other entities. Greenspan isn’t optimistic about the message’s ability to drive business, though. “I don’t think it matters, unfortunately, either way,” he says. Then why do it?“I think it’s an important message that needs to be sent,” he reasons. He also believes the campaign will position him to be left alone should the FTC or Congress come prowling around the industry.Perhaps he has shrewdness encoded in his genes.

People who pay to have their DNA sequenced give up any right to determine or control what is done with that information. The "privacy" statements use paragraphs of legalese to disguise the fact that there is actually almost no protection for the clients' most intimate, personal information.Most people have heard the term ‘DNA’ and seen the ‘double helix’ diagrams. Many are also aware of the growing use of DNA by the ‘authorities’ across the world. Governments in the West and India in particular are engaged in creating various biometric databases for the claimed purposes of ‘identity proof’ and ‘law enforcement’. But how many people realise how dangerous such a database is, or the potential for its misuse?There also appears to be an unwavering belief that DNA is an infallible tool for use as evidence in legal cases.With these ideas in mind I thought I would conduct some research into the background of DNA, the fallibility of its use, and the dangers of such a database and its accessibility by the state.Wikipedia summarizes:“Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses. Along with RNA and proteins, DNA is one of the three major macromolecules essential for all known forms of life. Genetic information is encoded as a sequence of nucleotides (guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine) recorded using the letters G, A, T, and C. Most DNA molecules are double-stranded helices, consisting of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, molecules with backbones made of alternating sugars (deoxyribose) and phosphate groups (related to phosphoric acid), with the nucleobases (G, A, T, C) attached to the sugars. DNA is well-suited for biological information storage, since the DNA backbone is resistant to cleavage and the double-stranded structure provides the molecule with a built-in duplicate of the encoded information.”And under the sub-section heading ‘Forensics‘:“Forensic scientists can use DNA in blood, semen, skin, saliva or hair found at a crime scene to identify a matching DNA of an individual, such as a perpetrator. This process is formally termed DNA profiling, but may also be called “genetic fingerprinting“. In DNA profiling, the lengths of variable sections of repetitive DNA, such as short tandem repeats and minisatellites, are compared between people. This method is usually an extremely reliable technique for identifying a matching DNA.However, identification can be complicated if the scene is contaminated with DNA from several people.DNA profiling was developed in 1984 by British geneticist Sir Alec Jeffreys,and first used in forensic science to convict Colin Pitchfork in the 1988 Enderby murders case.“In more basic terms, a DNA sequence makes up a gene, and each gene or combinations thereof supposedly determines a particular characteristic in an organism, such as that of eye colour or natural strength. In turn, a series of genes make up a chromosome. In essence DNA appears to be an individual’s unique biological code.A human DNA sample may potentially hold the full genetic blueprints (or ‘genome‘) to create, or recreate that human, and because that code is unique, a sample can be used as a ‘genetic fingerprint’ to trace the source human.Around ninety-five percent of DNA is still not understood. Anything outside of the known percentile is technically referred to as ‘noncoding DNA‘, or more often by the arrogant label ‘junk DNA‘, equating a lack of understanding with a lack of purpose. Surely nature doesn’t make mistakes?There are also regular announcements involving discoveries relating to the purpose of previously misunderstood genes, such as the 2012 announcement of the discovery of the first gene believed to be linked with intelligence. In the wake of the Sandy Hook incident scientists are apparently searching samples from the alleged gunman Adam Lanza in an attempt to find a gene for ‘evil’ – though this headline is somewhat superficial.Perhaps the most well known use of DNA is in the confirmation of paternity. Indeed it is a deep vein mined by exploitative daytime T.V. talk shows, such as the one hosted by Jeremy Kyle in the UK. Kyle’s format includes presenting members of the underclass, often ‘teen mothers’ with multiple sexual partners, with the results of DNA tests which verify the identity of the child’s father.Because the genome holds the entire hereditary code, it can also highlight potential hereditary health problems someone might experience, such as a predisposition to heart disease or a specific type of cancer. One of the more controversial aspects of modern genetics is that the human race now has the ability to alter the genetic code of a developing foetus, and alter potentially ‘faulty’ genes with ‘healthy’ genes from a third party, in effect creating a child with three parents, something that can also happen through modern IVF techniques. Britain has recently become the first nation to officially approve ‘germ-line gene therapy’ to allow for the switching in or out of various genes in human embryos. This poses serious moral questions. A prospective parent who would choose to alter a potentially ‘faulty’ gene in the code of their unborn child would also be removing some of their own genetic lineage arguably making the child less their own?And further than hereditary diseases, infectious diseases (i.e. diseases caught as an adult) such as HIV also show up in DNA. In fact DNA based tests are now becoming the norm in looking for these types of diseases.Just how far this science has progressed and how accessible it has become has been demonstrated by New York artist Heather Dewey-Hagborg in her ‘Stranger Visions‘ project. The artist realised she could harvest the DNA from discarded chewing gum and cigarette butts then recreate the faces of the strangers who had used the items.While there are undoubtedly limitations to her technique, for example she cannot define the age of the human source from a sample – yet, the ramifications of this are troubling when one remembers that this level of ability is available to a private individual, without the resources of an NGO, corporation, or a government agency. The ability of those kind of heavily funded entities to manipulate available DNA must be far more advanced than Dewey-Hagborg’s.DNA is also the foundation of the cloning process, where genes can be removed from their original chromosome and placed in an artificially constructed carrier cell which then allows the genes to replicate independently of their natural source lifeform (be that human, plant, animal, or bacteria).The first publicly announced cloned mammal was ‘Dolly the sheep’, ‘born’ July 5th 1996 in Scotland. Dolly was put down while suffering from a lung illness in 2003, not even seven years old – the average sheep lifespan around ten to twelve years. It was also disclosed that Dolly had been suffering from arthritis during the final year of her life. Both of these ailments are common to older sheep, and it transpired that the source sheep, from which Dolly had been cloned, was already six years old when the cells used in the cloning process were harvested.Further controversy was ignited after it was discovered that meat from the offspring of cloned cattle had appeared in the food chain of the UK, followed by the appearance of actual cloned meat in both the UK and the U.S.Had Dolly continued to age from the point at which the cells were harvested, rather than from the point of a newborn lamb? Would this have any effect on consumers eating similarly cloned meat? This is something that was, and still is, unclear.After the announcement of the creation of Dolly, discussions have taken place worldwide on a human cloning ban. In the U.S. Congressman Andy Harris (Republican, Maryland) has recently introduced a bill (H.R. 2164) to ban somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), the technical name for the cloning process. But even if such a ban were to be effected, having seen the lack of respect government and its entities have already shown for their own laws, whether that be in the financial arena through the LIBOR scandal amongst others, to the recent Prism scandal involving the recording and tracking of the communications of literally everyone, what’s to say that any government would obey or enforce such a ban regardless of the legal status?DNA clearly has many powerful applications, and some positive uses, particularly in the detection, and possible treatment of disease. DNA use has the potential to spot or prevent diseases early on and if a sample truly contains the entire blueprint for someone’s body, perhaps we are simply waiting for the announcement of discoveries allowing for the repair of faulty eyes or ear drums, or even the re-growing through cloning of missing limbs, etc.Now that we have some idea of what DNA really is and how it can be used let’s explore the potential downside and ability for misuse.Following the second world war the ‘Berlin wall’ was erected and Germany was split into two. The East German side (officially titled the ‘German Democratic Republic‘ or ‘GDR’) became a repressive authoritarian state ruled by the Soviets, until the country collapsed in 1989. The repression was carried out by the utterly ruthless state security apparatus known as the ‘Stasi‘. At it’s height in the 1980s, the membership of the Stasi including it’s informers, supposedly ammounted to a fifth of the GDR population!In the 1970s the Stasi began implementing a new operating technique called ‘criminal odorology’ [chapter 12 page 303]. This process involved interviewing an arrested subject, and at the point at which they began to sweat a Stasi member would enter the room holding a cloth with tweezers. The cloth would then be used to swab the subject’s sweat. Alternatively the subject may have been seated in a customised chair containing the cloth (as depicted in the 2006 German movie ‘The Lives Of Others‘ at approximately [0h05m]). The cloth was then placed into a vacuum sealed jar known as a ‘smell conserve‘, whereupon the subject was informed they had recorded his ‘scent’.The Stasi’s use of criminal odorology was often cited as one of their most disturbing and intrusive activities, in fact it has even been described as ‘perverse’ – yet it is nowhere near as intrusive (or disturbing) as placing someone’s DNA on a record somewhere.In law, there is a basic presumption that the burden of proof lies with the accuser. This is most famously expressed in the maxim ‘innocent until proven guilty‘, and dates back at least as far as the Romans. This is one of the most basic principles our entire society is based on. It is a rule that stops people constantly looking over their shoulders in a state of paranoia that they may be accused of something and have to prove their innocence. If one is accused but was home alone, one cannot provide any witnesses to verify one’s innocence. On the other hand, if one committed the crime surely there must be some evidence to corroborate this?The very existence of a DNA database is a fundamental reversal of this. By holding evidence in the form of our DNA, we are being declared ‘guilty until proven innocent’ which we will ultimately have to do by dying without ever having been convicted of a crime. It’s tantamount to dunking an accused witch, while the only way to prove her innocence is to drown.Though some may tediously argue “if you’ve got nothing hide, what’s the problem?” – would those people stick to that belief if the police suddenly barged in to their home and demanded fingerprints?It comes as no surprise that the UK is a leader in genetic surveillance with an estimated six million entrants on the DNA database (roughly ten percent of the population). The UK is also the leader in CCTV monitoring, and until the recent Snowden affair, was poised to be the leader in communication surveillance as well.Since 2004 the police have been granted the power to unlawfully take the DNA of a subject arrested for any ‘recordable offence’ without consent and regardless of whether charges are pressed, yet the police still continue attempting to expand upon these powers. In the U.S. a recent Supreme Court decision has granted similar powers, allowing for the swabbing of people arrested but not charged.There are also many examples of flaws in collection methods by investigators, bad handling in laboratories, or collection during an overlong time duration, all of which have the potential to contaminate samples. This was perhaps most famously highlighted in the Meredith Kercher murder investigation in Italy. Add to that findings by Israeli scientists that DNA evidence was ‘easy to fake‘, and comments by Tania Simoncelli of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who stated “DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints” and this supposedly infallible technique starts to look problematic.If DNA can be used in cloning then surely this allows for the possibility of cloning (and planting) genetic evidence?A DNA database held by a well funded entity such as a government has the power to discover what diseases individuals may be prone to, what diseases they have contracted, their parentage, and potentially even the ability to clone them (or at the very least experiment with cloning humans).This information offers the holder unprecedented power over individuals. A rape victim wishes to withhold the identity of the child’s father? The state knows. Contracted HIV through sexual contact? The state knows. How about the possibility the state may decide to profit by selling your personal information to private companies?If that last thought doesn’t get your immediate attention consider this. An insurance company purchases access to your data and discovers a hereditary predisposition to some potentially fatal illness. As a result your life insurance premiums double overnight…..The movie ‘Gattaca‘ (1997) dealt with an extension of this concept. A dystopic future where pilots are refused jobs on the basis of hereditary predisposition toward certain diseases regardless of whether the ‘diseased’ genes remained dormant.But DNA must hold even more potential than we have already been made aware of, otherwise why would the U.S. secret service feel the need to ‘protect’ the DNA of the President as stated by Ronald Kessler’s 2009 book entitled ‘In The President’s Secret Service‘?If DNA offers a unique code to every individual, is it not possible to create toxins or diseases that only target a specific genetic structure? A poison could be fed to everyone at a banquet, but would only affect one victim with the targeted genes…..This is not so outlandish a claim. Prior to his death and during the same period as other South American leaders were involved in cancer scares, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez said:“It’s very difficult to explain, even with the law of probabilities, what has been happening to some of us in Latin America. Would it be so strange that they’ve invented technology to spread cancer and we won’t know about it for 50 years?”In September 2000, the ‘neoconservative’ think tank the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) released the document ‘Rebuilding America’s Defences‘. This document has become infamous both for promoting a doctrine of pre-emptive warfare to take control of global resources, and for including this sentence concerned with galvanizing support for the doctrine one year prior to 9/11:“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor.”But the document also contains this lesser publicised sentence from page 66:“And advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”A call to develop race specific bio-weapons that would only attack certain gene sequences, possibly specific family bloodlines or ethnic groups is perhaps the most chilling of all the suggestions contained within the document. The very definition of ‘genocide‘. And where would the source DNA code for such biological weapon experiments come from? The DNA database?While these weapons might kill, they might not necessarily have to. As scientists identify the purpose of each individual gene in the genome, and with their growing ability to switch ‘faulty’ genes with ‘approved’ ones, it may be possible to switch out a chosen gene, such as that for aggression, with a replacement, say a ‘compliance’ gene. Perhaps this could be delivered through the water supply in a similar manner to fluoride now, or through an airborne nanotech smartdust?These are obviously only theoretical suggestions but it’s telling that PNAC felt it important enough to note.It seems after only seven decades, roughly a single lifetime, humanity has forgotten the horrors of the Nazi’s eugenics programme. This programme designated certain subsections within society as a ‘genetically contaminated’ burden on the remainder. These subsections comprised of the physically or mentally disabled, the ‘racially impure’, and the ‘criminally minded’ which included dissidents. The ‘solution’ to tackling these genetic inferiors ‘bringing down the racial quality of the nation’ began with sterilization and eventually progressed into an involuntary ‘euthanasia’ programme.The Nazi’s also brought in a standard identity card for the population. Jews and Christians may not have a distinctly different physical appearance as for example black and white people. The card of a Jew would feature a letter ‘J’ stamped on the front and this allowed German ‘officials’ to single out Jews with great ease on presentation of the card, perhaps for arrest, while non-Jews could be given superior treatment.Eugenics was not confined to Nazi Germany either, having originated in the UK with Sir Francis Galton, and partly inspired by Galton’s cousin Charles Darwin with his theories of ‘natural selection’. It’s ironic that if Darwin’s natural selection theory is true then surely ‘genetically contaminated bloodlines’ would naturally work their way out of the human race dispensing with the need for eugenics! The famous British concept of selective ‘breeding’ is also rooted in these same ideas.In the U.S. the Rockefeller Institute bankrolled the Nazi’s leading research centre, the ‘Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics‘ and assisted in domestic programmes too, as did both the Carnegie Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune, amongst others. Some U.S. domestic programmes continued as late as the 1970s!Alternatively, genetic weapons could be used as part of the ‘depopulation agenda’. It appears that many of the ‘farmers’ of society think ‘the herd’ has grown too large. Ted Turner, the founder of CNN who also happens to be the largest landowner in the U.S., discussed depopulation in an interview with Charlie Rose.Microsoft’s Bill Gates, whose father sat on the board of ‘Planned Parenthood’ (originally a racist Eugenics group) has also been promoting depopulation. In a 2010 ‘TED talk’ [the specific excerpts referred to are here] Gates discussed reducing CO2 emissions by bringing down the population of the world using vaccines. It has been suggested that this was not a slip of the tongue or faux pas, but rather Gates’ logic is that when the survival rate of children in the developing world rises, families are likely to have fewer children. Even if this claim were true I suspect it would take decades to create the huge population decline Gates wants to see. Later in the talk he discusses his one ‘wish’ for the future, the creation and implementation of zero emission energy technology, which he ends by saying:“If you give me only one wish in the next fifty years…..” “…If we don’t get this wish, the division between the people who think short term and long term will be terrible, between the U.S. and China, between poor countries and rich, and most of all the lives of those two billion will be far worse…..”‘Two billion’? In ‘fifty years’? Where did those numbers come from? Is that the population number the depopulists are aiming for? Ted Turner also seems to think two billion would be the perfect number of occupants for the planet.So how do these people intend to reduce population to that number within fifty years? Current White House science ‘tsar’ John P Holdren wrote in his 1977 book ‘Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Enviroment‘ (cowritten by Paul and Anne Ehrlich) on page 787-788:“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems.”What if someone created a bioweapon that could switch off the gene for ‘fertility’? In 2001 the U.S. company Epicyte created a genetically modified ‘spermicidal corn‘ so the world clearly cannot be far away from that eventuality, if not already there. Would these depopulists use such a weapon? Whether targeted at a specific ethnicity or the human race as a whole (assuming ‘insiders’ have some kind of vaccination) this would be sheer insanity.What unforeseen effects could arise from the use of genetic weapons? Rootworms have already adapted to genetically modified ‘bt-corn’ which produces it’s own insecticide and modified corn stalks are so tough farmers have found a need to fortify tires of farm machinery such as tractors with kevlar as the stalks damage the tires! While these two problems may not have the gravity of anti-human genetic weapons they do demonstrate the law of unforeseen consequences. ‘Children Of Men‘ (2006) hints at just such a scenario. A not too distant future civilisation is all but collapsing after an unexplained lack of human pregnancies for almost two decades. While the cause is never explored, it can certainly be read as a side effect of a genetic weapon unleashed by depopulation supporters.The UK, the U.S. and India, amongst other countries, have been spearheading the creation of biometric databases with the intent of holding the genetic information of their entire respective populations. The UK attempted to introduce biometric ID cards in 2005. This attempt failed though it has often been claimed that this was down to the costs for individual citizens. They have, however, gotten around this to some degree by introducing a biometric requirement in the application for a passport. At this point the requirement is only for facial biometrics taken from a specific type of photograph rather than genetic details. EU signatory countries to the Schengen agreement have the additional non-genetic biometric requirement of fingerprint data.One reason cited for the use of biometric ID cards during the 2005 campaign to promote them, was the threat of terrorism and the possible prevention of a new 9/11. Even the mainstream media pointed out that the alleged nineteen hijackers were foreigners to the U.S., and so that even if the U.S. had been implementing an ID card system, it would have been useless in stopping these attackers, who got in to the country through an old cold war CIA consulate in Saudi Arabia that fast-tracked Visas to the Soviet fighting Mujahideen.Home secretary Charles Clarke famously commented “I argue the ID card system is a bulwark against the surveillance society, the Big Brother society“, probably the greatest real world example of Orwellian ‘double-think’ ever. A little over a week later the July 7th bombings occurred, allegedly perpetrated by four British born Muslims (though never proven in a court of law), and offering a convenient justification for ID cards.By October of the following year Tony Blair was calling for the inclusion of everyone; “The number on the database should be the maximum number you can get.”Similarly, India’s 15th census in 2010 attempted to create a non-genetic biometric database and I.D. card scheme for the entire 1.2 billion population. Though the ID aspect remains incomplete with a massive 200 million people registered, animosity toward the database is growing, partly caused by a lack of legal protections on the collected data, partly through the centralisation of all that information, and partly because both fingerprint and retinal scans have been shown to be ‘spoofable’.Regardless of country, these non-genetic I.D. requirements are an obvious example of incrementalism toward full DNA collection. First the collection of facial biometrics, then later the collection of fingerprints, then later still iris scans, and finally DNA itself. Once people accept one biometric, the misleaders have a short pause before attempting to implement the next, and so on.In 2009 The Telegraph published an article following a timeline of selected events surrounding the DNA database. Some excerpts:*May 5, 1998: Chief Supt Peter Gammon, president of the Police Superintendents’ Association, calls for the establishment of a national DNA database for the entire population.*September 16, 1998: Det Ch Supt Robert Taylor, of the elite National Crime Squad, says a DNA sample should be taken from every baby at birth to help solve crime.*February 18, 2001: Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the scientist who discovered genetic fingerprinting, calls for the entire population to be DNA tested in a bid to combat serious crime.*September 5, 2007: Lord Justice Sedley proposes creating a DNA database of everyone in the UK, provoking outrage from civil libertarians.We see a pattern emerging of repeated calls to profile everyone, criminal and innocent alike. There is also this:*March 4, 2008: Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, Britain’s most senior policeman, raises the prospect of a EU-wide DNA database to catch criminals.In the wake of Edward Snowden’s recent revelations and the Prism scandal providing further confirmation that certain countries are swapping intelligence with each other, is it not likely that these same countries are also swapping DNA database information? If and when the U.S. introduces DNA swabbing for all foreign visitors, and the UK does the same, will the U.S. send back copies of the DNA data of British citizens to the UK, and vice versa?When it comes to biometric or genetic ID, why would we require it? We’ve never needed it before and the world still functioned. On the other hand, a modern day digital identity card or passport containing either coded genetic data or allowing for a cross reference against a database containing the same data could allow for the singling out of less distinct minorities as with the Jews of Nazi Germany.In China, it has been claimed practitioners of the spiritual exercise ‘Falun Gong‘ are persecuted by the government to the point of murder and organ harvesting. If this is true, a DNA database would simplify the targeting of victims per bloodtype for the state.The government/s controlling the DNA database have the power to know the lineage, diseases, physical characteristics, and potentially even mental characteristics or predispositions of the individual. That data could be used to plant fake evidence, which in my mind negates any real usage in criminal evidence without corroborating evidence, or it could be sold to private companies for commercial use.The database could (and most likely already does) provide source DNA for scientific research. The genetic code of database participants may already have been used in human cloning experiments. Worse still, some of this genetic material may be used to create human/animal hybrid experiments. While some of these experiments seem to offer genuine hope for medical advances in the future, other experiments appear to be attempts to find out if these things can be done, with no regard as to whether they should be done! Regardless of whether this science is for positive reasons or not, if samples from the database are being used, there is the question of consent.It would be naive to think the threat of targeted assassination or genocide through DNA specific bioweapons is likely to go away in the event of a DNA database shut down either. After all the human body sheds around a third to half a billion skin cells a day! If ‘they’ want your genetics it’s very difficult to stop the acquisition of them. Plus government doubtless already has a large range of samples across all ethnic groups. But this does not mean we shouldn’t still fight against the existence of the database to begin with.These DNA and biometric IDs and passports should receive large scale boycotts. The irony, of course, is that if a DNA based passport is introduced, the people who do not wish to hand over their genetic code will be the ones who can’t leave!Personally, I am not opposed to the use of DNA testing within murder investigations or sex crimes, though with additional corroborating evidence such as witness testimony, and the proviso that innocent parties have their samples destroyed under threat of imprisonment for the failure to do so. But I am in complete opposition to the carte blanche collection and/or exchange of private individuals’ information including DNA data between governments or between governments and private agencies.‘Power corrupts…..’