Discussion Forum: Disease Detector
Post your comments using the form at the bottom of the page.
BioMarker Detector created Doc in a Box with the ability to track a person’s health status on a day-to-day basis from the comfort of their home. Doc in a Box is able to detect and record the health level of an individual by examining multiple proteins that are present in their blood, which are collected through a nearly-invisible needle causing no detectable pain. The proteins present in the blood will fluctuate, either up or down, as the body changes. These changes can be due to many different naturally occurring events such as puberty, pregnancy, or menopause, along with more unfortunate changes such as getting cancer, flu, or Alzheimer’s disease. Doc in a Box is able to measure the amounts of specific proteins, or biomarkers, which are correlated to particular diseases, infections, or changes in the human body. These biomarkers are measured and recorded over time as health markers and tracked to develop a particular pattern specific for each individual called a biosignature. When there is a change in the body, there is an immediate change in the biomarkers outside the range of the biosigniture and detected by Doc in a Box.
Since the Doc in a Box is detecting markers on the molecular level, users will be informed of a cold or flu before a sore throat or cough ever occur. With the ability of Doc in the Box to detect diseases pre-symptomatically, people will be able to get treatment before they feel the illness and far before it is too late to treat the disease. For cancer patients, there will be biological implications of cancer before a tumor develops and before the cancer has time to spread. For Alzheimer’s patients, early detection of biomarker changes will enable more effective treatment options, possibly before any memory loss.
Posted Tuesday, 06/17/2008, 11:26am AZ Overall, there are very few reasons to be apprehensive about the development of this technology. Right now, early detection is the very best defense against cancer. So this, while perhaps not being a cure for cancer, may be the next best thing. And, naturally, cancer is just one of the potentially hundreds of diseases that these proteins could be tailored to detect.
Still, when developing policies regarding such accurate and early detection technologies, it must be ensured that it is being used in a responsible manner – one that does not interfere with personal privacy.
It is not difficult to imagine different corporations or companies screening their possible employee stock for genetic or other disorders with this technology.
Not surprisingly, although such practices are spreading worldwide, many employees and legal experts object to the role that health testing may play in the way the businesses operate; most are centrally concerned with the associated actions taken by employers based upon the results of such tests.
For instance, it is not straightforwardly clear whether terminating an employee based upon the results of their genetic tests is an ethically sound measure. Additionally, it may be a form of employment discrimination to eliminate one applicant based upon a genetic predisposition to some form of disease—after all, a predisposition fails to guarantee that the disease will ever manifest itself.
If such precedents can be found to be ethically sound, then other forms of discrimination may find their way into employer hiring practices. It is possible to imagine, for example, that one workplace environment might be more hazardous to people of African descent than people of European descent based upon their genetic make-ups. Would it therefore be justifiable to eliminate all African American applicants based merely upon their race?
We might further imagine that this position grows exponentially as an industrial super-employer in the United States; employing millions of workers and sustaining a substantial portion of the economy. So, could it ever be found to be ethical to categorically deny the African American’s entrance into this industry based purely upon genetic predisposition?
Some might contend that such circumstances are unlikely to ever arise, and they may be right. Yet, the notion that we should find one form of discrimination objectionable because it happens to be associated with race and another acceptable because it is more invisible in nature is a highly troubling position to take.
In order for the early disease detector to be utilized in a responsible manner, policies must be put in place that prohibit uses deemed by the public at large as unethical.
Full discussion: http://nano-ology.blogspot.com/
Posted Sunday, 05/11/2008, 9:02am AZ This is already existing in the form of major screening tests with more blood to be taken.The battery of tests for the particular age group is important while developing such things.For example, a baby born just now can be detected to have any possible phenly ketonuria will help to prevent mental retardation later.This way tests if planned will save money and also tailor made to the particular age,sex,and regional variation in disease incidence.
Dr.S.Shanmugam,M.D,Consultant Physician and Nanomedicine Researcher,Tirunelveli,India.
Posted Sunday, 05/11/2008, 9:01am AZ This is already existing in the form of major screening tests with more blood to be taken.The battery of tests for the particular age group is important while developing such things.For example, a baby born just now can be dedected to have any possible phenly ketonuria will help to prevent mental retardation later.This way tests if planned will save money and also tailor made to the particular age,sex,and regional variation in disese incidence.
Dr.S.Shanmugam,M.D,Consultant Physician and Nanomedicine Researcher,Tirunelveli,India.
Posted Saturday, 05/10/2008, 11:23am AZ To the 7 AM Friday commenter - There's nothing wrong with the technology itself, in my opinion.
However, it does open the door to interesting abuse - extrapolate towards the movie GATTACA, perhaps, where only 'genetically healthy' people can receive extended training due to the risks in training others. Think about the potential waste (and horror!) such a system could enforce - does anyone really think Dr Hawking isn't a genius even though he's got MND?
The current furor over genetic testing for disease proclivities being potentially made available or required for medical insurance is just the starting point of this. The capability discussed here is just an extension.
Posted Friday, 05/09/2008, 7:48am AZ I don't see anything wrong with this technology. Yes, medical professionals might have less work, but who cares if I can prevent myself from being sick. They should worry about bigger things anyway. I don't think drug prices vary too much because it would just cause a person to buy the medicine that they were going to buy a little sooner. As far as insurance goes, so what. Now you can't lie to them? The only drawback is the iatrogenic illness.
Posted Friday, 05/09/2008, 6:17am AZ Interesting, I was under the impression that the term "Doc in a Box" was a FASA copyright from their "Shadowrun" game, possibly now in Catalyst Games' control...
That being said - just how much blood is this system processing? If you're going through a needle that causes 'no detectable pain' it doesn't seem likely that you're getting very much volume to work on. While systemic infections DO affect "biomarkers", that's when they're well on the way to infesting the whole system. Additionally, there are quite a few diseases we humans carry around with us - how will you avoid false-positives?
Regarding the Thursday 9 PM AZT commenter's lack of concern on repercussions, I would suggest they take a look at the title of the group that proposed this capability. I humbly suggest that they may be somewhat interested in societal effects.
Posted Thursday, 05/08/2008, 9:54pm AZ I feel we should first develop this technology to save lives & enhance lives rather than worry about insurance/price increases etc.. Do not bother too much of its impact !!
Posted Thursday, 05/08/2008, 6:35pm AZ Won't a lot of people be treated unnecessarily, since diseases detected at such an early stage might or might not actually develop into illnesses, the body manages to stave off lots of diseases without outside help. So what's the potential here for a huge upsurge in iatrogenic illness, i.e., illness caused by the treatments themselves?
Posted Thursday, 05/08/2008, 6:33pm AZ Presumably this will be very expensive, at least at first, so most people won't have access to it, certainly poor people won't. Won't this mean a rapid exacerbation of health inequities?
Posted Thursday, 05/08/2008, 3:35pm AZ If you could design a medical nanorobot to 'evolve' ad hoc by adapting structures that could deal with evolving pathogenic genotypes and proteins that it encouters en vivo, you could pair it with a broadcast architecture as a component of a medical nanorobot swarm. Think of it as having an adaptive swiss army knife to deal with disease. In this case, you would have a very powerful tool for human adaptation in nearly any septic or toxic environment. This assumes of course, that the pathogen doesn't have the ability to adapt faster than your medical nanorobots, or hijack them by using their adaptive protocall.
Posted Monday, 05/05/2008, 12:08pm AZ Just do it... make it happen! Prove the capability, then we can argue the ethics and other issues.
Posted Friday, 05/02/2008, 3:53pm AZ How will this affect the field of medical professionals? Will their jobs be endangered by the use of this technology, or will the field experience a sudden increase as more and more people report changes in biomarker levels to their doctors and seek early treatment?
If more and more people become aware of diseases they might have, the "precautionary use" of drugs is likely to become more prevalent in society. With the increase in demand for medical treatments, the prices of already-expensive drugs will increase significantly and more people will not be able to afford the treatment they need. How will these changes affect health care programs like Medicare?
This increase in awareness of disease presence could have serious ramifications for the entire health care industry, not just medical professionals or drug companies. For example, will insurance companies require reports of biomarker levels before insuring an individual?
On the other hand, perhaps the changes caused by the Doc in a Box technology will provide the long-awaited opportunity for our health care system to be restructured or revised, making sure that all Americans can get the health care they need.