FBI Director Says Agency Will Track Police-Involved Killings Better By Not Changing Any Of Its Current Methods

from the mistaking-stasis-for-progress dept

After years of not giving a damn and letting the public do its job for it, the FBI is apparently ready to get serious about collecting stats on "police-involved shootings." In a statement released along with the FBI's 2014 Crime Report (tl;dr: most crime down again), FBI director James Comey says the agency will be doing… something… to ensure more comprehensive reporting of citizens killed by police.

[T]o address the ongoing debate about the appropriate use of force by law enforcement, we plan to collect more data about shootings (fatal and nonfatal) between law enforcement and civilians, and to increase reporting overall. Currently, the UCR program collects the number of justifiable homicides reported by police as well as information about the felonious killing and assault of law enforcement officers. These data are available in Crime in the United States and Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted. As helpful as this information is, however, we need more law enforcement agencies to submit their justifiable homicide data so that we can better understand what is happening across the country. Once we receive this data, we will add a special publication that focuses on law enforcement’s use of force in shooting incidents that will outline facts about what happened, who was involved, the nature of injuries or deaths, and the circumstances behind these incidents. We hope this information will become part of a balanced dialogue in communities and in the media—a dialogue that will help to dispel misperceptions, foster accountability, and promote transparency in how law enforcement personnel relate to the communities they serve.

There's a lot not to like about this statement.

First off, the FBI is only now getting around to "addressing the debate," after doing the bare minimum for the past several years. Currently, the data is "collected" via voluntary reports from law enforcement agencies and is limited to justifiable homicides, and then only those where someone was shot during the commission of a felony. This is why the FBI's yearly totals are, at best, half of what's tallied by private efforts.

Comey's statement basically says nothing's going to change. The collection will still be limited to "justifiable" homicides and will still be voluntary. Comey says he wants more law enforcement agencies to submit data, but there's no directive being issued to force the issue.

If anything's going to mobilize a more complete collection of shooting data, it will likely be new legislation. But the only recent effort towards a more comprehensive database of police-involved killings is languishing in Washington, having gone no further than being assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

If any expanded reporting does result from Comey's announcement, it will still be heavily-skewed in favor of law enforcement agencies and their use of force. Because it will only contain information on homicides deemed to be justified, the report will not provide any further information on unjustified uses of deadly force. This will do nothing to further the conversation on law enforcement use of force, much less increase the level of trust in the communities they serve.

Comey is correct that continuing to serve up incomplete statistics won't result in positive change. But his statement contains nothing that indicates substantive changes in reporting is on the way. The only difference here is that the FBI is finally acknowledging the public's growing disgruntlement with the nation's law enforcement agencies. But Comey's light touch -- designed not to offend his agency's brothers-in-arms -- suggests the only thing he's willing to throw at the problem is a few extra words.

Filed Under: data, fbi, police, police shootings, shootings, tracking

Digital Health Data vs. An Analog Memory

from the the-possibilities-are-endless dept

What started as a quiet evening one recent Saturday ended with a multi-hour visit to my local emergency room.

It was a relatively "vanilla" visit for a suburban ER — I walked away with multiple stitches and a bruised ego. But I received one service I probably didn't need, reminding me we still have a long way to go before the great potential of digitized medical data is realized.

I received a tetanus shot that I'm almost certain was unnecessary. However, all the evidence against getting the shot lay only in my memory. While there are likely several records of my last tetanus shot in multiple, siloed databases, not a single one was within my reach when I needed it most.

Of all people, given my career and the passion I have for the tech sector, I should have been ready for this. In an era when health and medical data are increasingly digitized, my information shortfall that night was easily and entirely avoidable.

"When was your last tetanus shot?" the ER doctor asked me. As I fumbled to recall with exactness the particular date, time and place, he jumped in, "Sounds like it was tonight." Moments later, the nurse strolled in and administered the shot.

I'm almost certain I got a tetanus shot before I went to Nigeria in 2014...or was it when I went to Ethiopia in 2013? Despite my inability to recall the date with precision — surely, it's been in the past 10 years, hasn't it – that information is available somewhere.

My insurance company knows. The clinic or doctor's office where I received the shot surely digitized the details. But that Saturday evening, we weren't able to access any of this digitized information. I'm looking forward to the day, fast-approaching, when that changes.

We're in the midst of a revolution in personal health, thanks in large part to consumers' enthusiasm for wearable fitness activity trackers. Sales of health and fitness trackers continue to rise with an ever-expanding suite of wearables. Health and fitness apps and devices let us capture, collect, manage and better understand our own medical data in unprecedented ways. And when we can control our own health records, we are better informed when we go to the doctor's office or the pharmacy or, in my case, the emergency room.

Technology also enables us to share diagnoses and test results, seek second opinions and shop for less-expensive care. The more information patients have, the more invested we are in our own care — and the better we can serve as a "safety net" for our doctors' potential oversights or lack of information.

Consider the extraordinary case of the woman who served as her family's caregiver when her father was admitted to the hospital unexpectedly. Doctors wanted to give him a blood-thinner drug that their outdated records indicated he was taking. The woman pulled up her father's medical records using an app, BlueButton, which showed that he had been off the blood thinner for two years, so none was administered. Shortly after being discharged from the hospital, the man cut himself badly in a fall. Had he been on that blood thinner, that fall might have resulted in much more serious injuries.

Digital data allows us to take an active role in our health—not just by delivering us the right information, but by allowing us to see where our lifestyle choices influence our health. For example, by tracking the number of steps I take in a day, my sleep and other measures of activity, I can see how going to bed thirty minutes later than normal impacts my activity level on the following day.

And data will fundamentally change doctor-patient relationship, too. Today's doctor assessment largely relies on the same approach that has been used for hundreds of years – the doctor asks the patient questions in an attempt to pinpoint the problem by intersecting the answers with her or his own knowledge and experience.

Of course, this type of discovery is fraught with imperfections – our brains are analog and we forget the particulars of our health history. But good digital data never lies. As more of our health data is captured, stored and shared, doctors will become more efficient, our health care system will get better and we will be healthier.

In the ER down the street, with me sitting on a sterilized bed in a sterilized room on an otherwise quiet Saturday night, a doctor, a nurse and a patient could have changed analog behavior — if only we had had access to digitized information.

Shawn DuBravac is chief economist of the Consumer Electronics Association and the author of "Digital Destiny: How the New Age of Data Will Transform the Way We Live, Work, and Communicate." Follow him on Twitter @shawndubravac.

Filed Under: data, electronic health records, health

Anti-Cheat Software Company Contracted By Rutgers Fails To Live Up To Privacy Agreement With Students

from the i-see-you dept

There has always been a strong emphasis in educational institutions on stopping cheating. All of this hand-wringing makes sense to a point, of course. With the advent of technological progress, however, two separate roads appear to be heading to a cross: the use of technology to stop cheaters and the question of just how we're going to define cheating as information becomes more widely searchable and available. For the latter, I'm very much in favor of judging students on their ability to find answers and create interesting solutions compared with the originality of their responses. As the saying goes, it's not what you think that's most important, but how you think. As to the former, it seems we can't go a single story about schools using technology to police any aspect of their students without finding some failing in its implementation.

Such as the latest instance out of Rutgers, where the school hastily dove into a partnership with ProctorTrack, an anti-cheating and student-monitoring platform that failed to live up to its end of the privacy bargain with students.

Verificient Technologies, the company behind the student-monitoring, anti-cheating software ProctorTrack, has not communicated to Rutgers students what the company has done with their personal data.

As we reported, ProctorTrack uses remote-monitoring technology to collect audio, video, and document the web activity of students as they take the exam. The software also scans the ID, face and knuckles of the student, and takes a voice sample. But complaints from students suggest that Verificient has not sent out any notification about the status of their data.

Notifications that Verificient was contract-bound to supply to students upon the purging of the data it collected on them. The way this was supposed to work was that all student monitoring data would be deleted from the primary servers after 90 days, with a notice to students, and then deleted form the backup servers 30 days after that, with another notice to students. Aiding in the confusion is that Rutgers had initially told students the purges would occur within 30 days of the test, back when the school had only a verbal agreement with Verificient, as did the company on its website in what it called its "privacy pledge." That pledge appears to have been violated in the name of "we can change our promise whenever the hell we feel like it" corporate provisions.

But the company's privacy policy at the time of the blog post stated that it could unilaterally amend its policies at any time, and that student data could be disclosed to third party service providers or in the event of a bankruptcy or company merger. But the contract singed in August provided for a longer time frame to delete data, and notify students: 90 days.

According to the contract, which actually went into effect seven months before it was signed, students who used the software during the spring 2015 semester should have received email notifications that their proctoring data had been permanently deleted from the servers.

But they didn't get those emails and students are now rightly pissed off at not knowing what the hell is going on with their personal, audio, and video data. Were this about monitoring web-browsing during tests, it would be bad enough, but we're talking about intrusive audio/video data on students and the company handling that information couldn't be bothered to follow its own post-redefinition pledge of privacy notifications. And, it should be noted, Rutgers students themselves had to pay $32 for the privilege of using this software.

So who exactly is the cheater here, guys?

Filed Under: anti-cheating software, data, privacy, proctortrack, spying, students
Companies: rutgers, verificient technologies

Why TPP Threatens To Undermine One Of The Fundamental Principles Of Science

from the and-that's-a-fact dept

Last week, we wrote that among the final obstacles to completing the TPP agreement was the issue of enhanced protection for drugs. More specifically, the fight is over an important new class of medicines called "biologics," which are produced from living organisms, and tend to be more complex and expensive to devise. The Conversation has a good feature looking at this issue in more detail. The central problem with biologics in TPP is "data exclusivity," which the article explains as follows:

Data exclusivity refers to the protection of clinical trial data submitted to regulatory agencies from use by competitors. It's a different type of monopoly protection to patents. While a product is covered by data exclusivity, manufacturers of cheaper follow-on versions of the product can't rely on the clinical trial data produced by the originator of the drug to support the marketing approval of their product.

Section 25a of Australia's Therapeutic Goods Act provides for five years of data exclusivity for all medicines. It makes no distinction between biologics and other drugs. Data exclusivity provides an absolute monopoly that, unlike a patent, can't be revoked or challenged in court.

As that makes clear, data exclusivity is a kind of super-patent in that it can't be challenged or revoked: if a drug company has run clinical trials to establish the safety of its new drug, it has an absolute and irrevocable monopoly on the use of that data -- for five years in the case of Australia, Chile, Singapore and New Zealand. This is obviously an incredibly powerful form of monopoly, so perhaps it's no surprise that US pharmaceutical companies want TPP to require signatories to grant an even longer period -- 12 years of data exclusivity -- for biologics.

That's useful for them, because even after drug patents have expired, and generic manufacturers can theoretically offer the same products without paying licensing fees, there remains the barrier of clinical testing. If the generic manufacturers can't point to the original clinical trials as proof that the drug is safe, they will need to carry out their own, which will take time and cost money. In practice, they are more likely to wait until the period of data exclusivity is over, effectively extending the original manufacturer's monopoly beyond that provided by patents alone.

So what? You might ask. Surely it's only fair that generic manufacturers cannot piggy-back on the work of the original drug companies? Although that argument sounds plausible, it overlooks the fact that what clinical trials produce is safety data about a drug, which is simply a certain kind of scientific fact concerning a particular complex compound, as unchanging as all its other features. It is not something that depends on the ingenuity of the person measuring it, because it represents intrinsic information about a substance. Granting data exclusivity is thus nothing less than giving a monopoly on knowledge itself, since it forbids any other company from being able to use that newly-established scientific fact.

That is a profoundly retrogressive step. Although dressed up in terms of fairness and recouping investments, the very notion of data exclusivity is an attack on the key idea that no one can own a scientific fact, and that science advances by building on existing knowledge. Arguments about whether the length of that monopoly should be five, eight or even twelve years, are not just pointless, they are pernicious, because any of them would lock the TPP countries into a system that allows basic facts to be owned, and would forbid them from exiting from it. The only acceptable length for data exclusivity is zero years; anything longer turns TPP into an attack on science itself.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: biologics, data, data exclusivity, science, sharing, tpp

MoMA Releases Data On 125,000 Art Works To The Public

from the good-for-them dept

The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York is not just one of the most famous museums in the world, is also trying to give back to the public somewhat as well. Not only has it proudly embraced Creative Commons by displaying CC's own logo as a part of its collection, it has decided to release data on over 125,000 works into the public domain by posting them to Github using a cc0 public domain dedication.

Unfortunately, the data included does not include images of the artwork, which would have been a much more impressive move. Also, on the Github page, there is a list of "usage guidelines" which includes lines such as saying if you modify the dataset "you must make it clear that the resulting dataset has been modified by you." Of course, that's not actually required. Most of the other "guidelines" are more in the form of a request -- which is fine -- rather than a command. Of course, it's not even clear if the data in the dataset even could be covered by copyright, as most of it appears to be factual data (names of projects, dates, sizes, etc.) which would be akin to a phone book -- whose data are decidedly not covered by copyright.

So, yes, it's always great to see more people embracing the public domain, and it's unquestionably great that MoMA is releasing all this data in an easily accessible format without restrictions. But it could still go even further. Hopefully we'll soon reach an age when this kind of thing is just standard operating procedure, rather than it being considered a big thing to release some datasets to the public to use.

Filed Under: art, cc0, copyright, data, public domain
Companies: moma

Judge Says Uber Should Be Shut Down In California

from the another-day,-another-problem dept

Uber appears to be a company that just can't get out of the way of controversy. The week actually started out good for the company with New York announcing that Uber drivers were clearly contractors rather than employees (unlike a California labor commission ruling that went the other way). However, on Wednesday afternoon an administrative judge in California declared that the company's services should be suspended statewide for supposedly refusing to provide data that it's required to provide under a 2013 law that helped "legalize" the service (that was already widely in use at the time).

Uber, for its part, insists that it delivered the necessary info and promises to appeal the ruling (which also includes a $7.3 million fine, which is pocket change for the company right now). It also appears to hint that the information that the Public Utilities Commission is seeking would actually violate the company's privacy policies.

In a statement, an Uber spokeswoman called the decision "deeply disappointing."

"We will appeal the decision as Uber has already provided substantial amounts of data to the California Public Utilities Commission, information we have provided elsewhere with no complaints," spokeswoman Laura Zapata said. "Going further risks compromising the privacy of individual riders as well as driver-partners."

The details seem to involve what kinds of data Uber was supposed to turn over, including specifics about requests from users with service animals or wheelchairs. Uber apparently didn't have the ability to track that information in the past, though it does now. On the flip side, the California PUC argues that companies in the space were given a year to comply, and thus Uber had plenty of time to make sure it was compliant and failed to do so.

As part of the 2013 law that legalized ride-hailing in California, companies are required to prepare an annual report with data about rides provided through the app.

Uber's 2014 report did not include hard numbers on customers who requested cars to accommodate service animals or wheelchairs, nor how often those requests were fulfilled, the judge said. The company also didn't provide raw numbers on requests for rides tabulated by ZIP Code, and how many of those rides were fulfilled, instead providing “aggregates, averages and percentages,” and a heat map showing which ZIP Codes generally saw the most requests.

Uber also failed to submit complete information on drivers who have been suspended or committed a violation, the judge said. The company did not provide the “cause of the incident reported,” or the amount paid out by any insurance company other than Uber's.

It would appear that the company and its lawyers are going to remain rather busy for the foreseeable future. It is, frankly, somewhat surprising that Uber didn't do more to comply with these requests, even if it disagrees with need to hand over such information. Not fully complying was always going to end badly. There may be legitimate privacy arguments for Uber to make here, but it doesn't seem like playing games with the CPUC is the best way to make that point.

Filed Under: california, cpuc, data, privacy, puc
Companies: uber

Senators Introduce Legislation Calling For Mandatory Data Collection On Police-Involved Shootings

from the because-'if-you-feel-like-it'-just-isn't-working dept

If you're looking for the number of citizens killed by police officers, don't ask the government. It just doesn't know. The DOJ is nominally in charge of compiling this information, but it has not made anything resembling an honest effort to do so.

To begin with, it has mostly ignored the federal law ordering the compilation of stats on excessive force by law enforcement officers. And it has ignored this for the last 20 years. To make things worse, it has turned over the duty of collecting data on police-involved shootings to the FBI, which has even less interest in ensuring the comprehensiveness of its "collection."

"Collection" has smart quotes nailed to it because the FBI made this a purely voluntary collection. Law enforcement agencies are invited to send in in-custody death data -- which is then verified by no one. The only thing agencies have to gain from self-reporting deaths at the hands of its officers are transparency, accountability and potentially better relationships with the people they serve. Those "gains" rarely align with law enforcement interests.

Available data is limited even further by only including citizens who were shot during the commission of a felony. Slimming it down even more is its limitation to "justifiable homicides." Everything else is simply ignored.

So, it's left to the public sector to compile this data. One of the most comprehensive databases of police-involved killings is being compiled by The Guardian with the assistance of forerunners in the (unofficial) field like Fatal Encounters and Killed By Police. Other databases are being crowd-sourced or compiled by hand by truly devoted individuals. But the government has shown no interest in compiling this information as a public service.

To that end, two senators (Cory Booker and Barbara Boxer) have introduced legislation calling for the creation and maintenance of a mandatory police-related killings database.

Senators Barbara Boxer of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey proposed legislation that would demand all states submit reports to the US Department of Justice that they said would bring “transparency and accountability to law enforcement agencies nationwide”.

“Too many members of the public and police officers are being killed, and we don’t have reliable statistics to track these tragic incidents,” Boxer said in a statement. “This bill will ensure that we know the full extent of the problem so we can save lives on all sides.”

Note the bone being thrown to law enforcement agencies, who are only too happy to compile statistics that show how "dangerous" their work is. Yes, a bill prompted by a Washington Post article on police-involved killings is preemptively calming the nerves of those who may potentially be forced to hand over information on deaths at the hands of their officers.

All well and good, but we've already put two agencies in charge of collecting this data and neither have made more than a minimal effort to do so. Making it mandatory is a huge leap forward, but pushing resistant agencies into coughing up unflattering data will take more than a well-intentioned piece of legislation. It needs to stop obliging those who have withheld this data over the years and instead provide for serious consequences if law enforcement agencies fail to meet the requirements of the law.

If previous efforts along these same lines are any indication, simply demanding agencies comply doesn't seem to have resulted in increased compliance.

In December, Congress reauthorized an act requiring that states report to the Justice Department instances where civilians are killed by police.

“Non-fatal shooting or use of force data is not captured” under the existing legislation, the release said.

So, six months after that "reauthorization" and there's been no appreciable change in reporting. At this point, anyone but the government is doing a better job capturing this data. Leading the charge from within may eventually force needed change, but a couple of decades of minimal reporting says otherwise.

Filed Under: barbara boxer, cory booker, data, doj, fbi, police shootings

Waze, LA Cops Bury The Hatchet, Figure Out A Way To Cooperatively Help People

from the look-what's-possible-when-you-stop-bitching dept

Earlier this year, we noted how traffic-monitoring app Waze had become public enemy number one among law enforcement. Police in a growing number of cities have been trying to argue that the service puts police officers at greater risk of crazed-stalker attack by allowing users to share and comment on speed trap locations. Of course what law enforcement was really concerned about was a reduction in speed trap income, and someone with a death wish certainly doesn't need an app to locate a police officer in a marked car parked alongside a major interstate. There's also that whole First Amendment thing.

Among those Waze critics was Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, who not only claimed Waze made parked officers a greater target for crazies, but would aid criminal skullduggerists in planning their Grand Theft Auto-esque heists:

"Beck said Tuesday the app could be used by criminals to target police or to evade officers. "It is not always in the public’s best interest to know where police are operating," Beck said. "There is a criminal element," he said, "who are able to ply their trade and craft more effectively by knowing where police are."

If you're a criminal using frequently inconsistent, crowdsourced speed trap data as your lookout for your multi-million dollar heist, you're probably not going to be much of an actual threat. Interestingly though, Beck appears to have come to (at least some of) his senses with the news that Los Angeles law enforcement is now working with Google and Waze on a partnership that will involve sharing kidnapping and hit-and-run data with Waze users:

"Waze, an Israeli-made traffic and navigation app bought by Google in 2013, already provides updates on road closures via user contributions. The new partnership with the West Coast city’s government will see further alerts pop up over the next few months, showing ‘amber’ incidents including hit-and-run attacks and kidnappings. "This is going to be updated in real-time, every two minutes, giving motorists the information they need to […] get home for dinner in time," said Garcetti."

We get too few relatively happy endings (not that kidnappings and hit-and-runs are happy endings), but using LA's 1.3 million Waze users as a force for good certainly seems like a welcome turnaround. Of course, that may not stop Beck from simultaneously trying to get speed trap data pulled from the app (and there are still some cops trying to flood Waze with bogus data to make crowdsourcing less useful), but it's a good example of crowdsourcing being a positive agent for change -- and not some kind of destructive societal menace that needs curtailing for the greater good.

Filed Under: amber alerts, data, la, lapd, traffic information, waze
Companies: google, waze

Should People Be Told Key Results Of Genetic Tests They Never Took?

from the ethical-dilemmas dept

The population of Iceland is unusual in a number of ways. Icelanders are descendants from a relatively small group of early settlers that remained isolated for hundreds of years. They have unmatched genealogical records that allow the family tree of many Icelanders to be traced back a thousand years, and thus for familial interrelationships on the island to be established with unprecedented completeness. Put those together, and you have a population that offers unique advantages for studying human genetics. That fact led to the founding of the Icelandic company Decode, which was set up in the hope that it would be possible to use Iceland's population to pinpoint genes associated with medical conditions, and then come up with new ways of diagnosing, treating and preventing them.

That didn't work out, and in 2012, Decode was bought by Amgen. But technology has advanced hugely since Decode's founding in 1996. The cost of sequencing the human genome has fallen dramatically, allowing the DNA of thousands of people to be compared -- something prohibitively expensive 20 years ago. The New York Times reports on research by Decode that has resulted in the sequencing of the genomes of 2,636 Icelanders, the largest collection ever analyzed in a single human population. Because of the completeness of Iceland's genealogical records, Decode's scientists were able to do something rather remarkable: work out the full genomes of another 100,000 Icelanders, a third of the entire country, without collecting any of their DNA.

With a technique called imputation, the researchers say they are able to ascertain the full genomes of people they have not even examined. Dr. Stefansson said that means that his firm could generate a report for genetic disease on every person in Iceland.

Once those "imputed" genomes have been constructed using computers, they can be interrogated in novel ways:

With the push of a button, for instance, the firm can identify every person with the well-known BRCA2 mutation, which dramatically raises the risk of breast and ovarian cancer -- even if they have not submitted to genetic testing themselves.

Currently, that information is withheld from Icelanders, but Dr. Stefansson hopes that the government will change its policy. “It’s a crime not to approach these people,” he said.

That raises an interesting ethical question. Should people who have never had their genome sequenced be told the results of this kind of computer-based analysis? Although the Icelandic case might seem unique, it is only a matter of time before sequencing costs fall so far that millions, rather than thousands of individuals can be sequenced within a population. And the more genomes that are available, the more imputed genomes that can be calculated, making the ethical dilemmas faced in Iceland something that people in other countries will soon have to confront too.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: data, ethics, genetic tests, information, privacy
Companies: amgen, decode

DailyDirt: What Are We Going To Do With All This Genetic Information?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Genomic sequencing is becoming more readily available and cheaper by the minute. It's not quite as easy as it looks on TV (ie. we don't have a Star Trek tricorder just yet), but minuscule amounts of DNA are revealing a vast amount of information about our health and our ancestors. This treasure trove of data is literally lying around everywhere just waiting to be collected.

• The genetic information of 2,636 Icelanders has helped researchers more accurately pin down when the father of all humanity lived -- some time between 174,000 and 321,000 years ago. Our mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived about 200,000 years ago. However, our most recent common ancestor (MRCA) likely lived just 2,000-4,000 years ago. [url]
• A routine blood test can determine the sex of a baby just 7 weeks into a pregnancy. Can we expect people to use the results of these tests responsibly? How accurate do these tests really need to be? [url]
• A diagnostic test for cancer based on a simple blood test could save a lot of time, money and stress. The Lymphocyte Genome Sensitivity (LGS) test is still in clinical trials, but early results suggest it might be possible to detect cancer or pre-cancerous conditions without requiring biopsies. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, if you have some spare change (or more) and would like to support Techdirt, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: blood tests, cancer, data, dna, genetics, genomic sequencing, health, icelanders, lgs test, lymphocyte genome sensitivity test, mitochondrial eve, mrca