chadn737 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Craig Venter has just announced a new company. Human Longevity Inc. that proposes to sequence 40,000 human genomes a year and scale to 100,000 a year to produce the worlds largest human genotype/phenotype database to address issues of aging related diseases. The scale of proposing this amount of data will be insane. Typical GWAS studies have a few thousand genotyped individuals. With this many whole genome sequences, the ability to do association analysis and fine mapping will be incredible. The real question is how the hell they will analyze so much data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I have a lot of respect for Craig Venter. This is an incredible undertaking. This gives me hope that longevity isn't going to be a rich-person-only, privatized endeavor. And I like Venter's approach, make 100 the new 60. If more scientists became entrepreneurs, perhaps we'd see more long-ranged, thoughtful market applications and less bottom-line-only mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 There ara a lot of social and economic implications to everyone living significantly longer. Economic growth in terms of jobs needs to keep pace, especially if retirement ages start going up, and you need somewhere for all these people to reside. Crop production has to scale, and raw material consumption in other areas, especially energy consumption, will rise significantly. According to the NIH, we are already gaining about 1 year of life expectancy every six years - with the current average at about 78 years, we can reasonably expect the life expectancy of an otherwise healthy citizen in the US to reach 100 by the year 2150. That might be enough time for the government and our society to come to grips with the issues this will cause. Maybe. Not to be a gloomy gus - I would love to live longer - have more time with my kids, my parents; I don't know anyone that wouldn't. But the long term consequences cannot be ignored, and the time to start discussing them is now, not after we're living to be 140, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 There ara a lot of social and economic implications to everyone living significantly longer. Economic growth in terms of jobs needs to keep pace, especially if retirement ages start going up, and you need somewhere for all these people to reside. Crop production has to scale, and raw material consumption in other areas, especially energy consumption, will rise significantly. According to the NIH, we are already gaining about 1 year of life expectancy every six years - with the current average at about 78 years, we can reasonably expect the life expectancy of an otherwise healthy citizen in the US to reach 100 by the year 2150. That might be enough time for the government and our society to come to grips with the issues this will cause. Maybe. Not to be a gloomy gus - I would love to live longer - have more time with my kids, my parents; I don't know anyone that wouldn't. But the long term consequences cannot be ignored, and the time to start discussing them is now, not after we're living to be 140, I understand and share your concerns. I think that any increases in longevity won't be happening overnight, and so we'll probably have the time to adapt the rest of our society to compensate. It's definitely a game-changer. We have some encouraging technologies that may dovetail well with this, particularly with lab-grown proteins and other ways to increase food yields. I've always felt we have quite a ways to go in improving efficiency in many areas that have been wasteful in the past, and living longer may force us to put in more effort. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) I understand and share your concerns. I think that any increases in longevity won't be happening overnight, and so we'll probably have the time to adapt the rest of our society to compensate. It's definitely a game-changer. We have some encouraging technologies that may dovetail well with this, particularly with lab-grown proteins and other ways to increase food yields. I've always felt we have quite a ways to go in improving efficiency in many areas that have been wasteful in the past, and living longer may force us to put in more effort. I agree with the sentiment - I'm cynical about the execution. Here in the US especially, large portions of the population are prone to ignoring the loong term consequences of their actions. Maybe a game changing technology is what is needed to wake people up out of their apathetic approach to conservation and future planning, though. Edited March 4, 2014 by Greg H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) Seems like a typical Venter project. Massive technological upscaling, but little in terms of hypothesis driven research (or in gaining fundamental insights, despite claims). I assume something will come out of it, but i would not be surprised if they face similar issues as other high-throughput database projects. Edited March 4, 2014 by CharonY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts