If those with good “3bn biochemical letters of human genome” ask insurance companies for rebates, what about the bad?

Sir, in screaming silence I read what Clive Cookson writes about “technologies advancing at extraordinary speed to make possible ultra-precise manipulation of the genome” “Engineered evolution takes another step forward” January 18.

In March 2000, after reading “the government plans to allow insurance companies to use DNA testing to assess whether people are at risk of inheriting serious illness and should pay higher premiums”, I wrote an Op-Ed titled “Human genetics made inhuman”.

In it I expressed many of the concerns about the discriminatory implications of DNA mapping and expressed the view that something needed to be done before any release of DNA information caused irreversible damage. I there suggested “that all insurance companies design a plan which obligates them to issue policies for all of those who undertake a genetic examination. This policy should cover the negative impact and consequence that could arise from anyone getting access to such information.”

But I also admitted: “I know this is only a Band-Aid, but what else can I do? I am not among those that resign and lie down to cry, even though this matter actually would justify just that.”

Now, 17 years later, I have no idea on whether something, anything, has been done to save humans from a release of the information contained in a “DNA sequencing, which reads out all 3bn biochemical letters of an individual human genome [and which can be done] in a few hours for less than $1,000”.

Sir, I ask, if with only $1,000 investment, I can get a test testifying I have a good DNA, and which perhaps allows me to for instance negotiate special favored rates with an insurance company, how will that affect those whose tests indicate a not so good or even a very risky DNA, something that in fact could include me or the ones I love?

Environmental challenges, 1st class robots, 3rd class robots, intelligent artificial intelligence, dumb artificial intelligence, terrorism, nuclear weapons, fast and cheap DNA testing, crazy bank regulators, structural unemployment… and the list of challenges goes on and on. How will a world that spends so much of its very scarce attention span glued to so very attractive juicy fake/irrelevant news stories cope?

@PerKurowski

We would appreciate Google’s DeepMind (or IBM’s Watson) giving the Basel Committee some tips on intelligent thinking

Sir, I refer to Clive Cookson’s “DeepMind overcomes memory block to bring thinking computers a step closer”, October 13.

Here again we read about so much research going on in the world of artificial intelligence. Though clearly still a lot needs to be done, the current advances could perhaps suffice in order to give some good tips to some humans who do not seem to be able to get their thinking quite right.

Yes! You’ve guessed it Sir. I am indeed referring to the Basel Committee of Banking Supervision and their risk weighted capital requirements for banks. Perhaps it would be easier for the regulators to hear out some observations on how to regulate banks, if it came from an impressive “differentiable neural computer” with AI capability, and not from a simple non-expert human like me.

So, if Google’s DeepMind (or IBM’s Watson) were able to only convey the importance of first defining clearly the purpose of banks before regulating these; and second to do some empirical research on why bank systems fail, that could be extremely helpful for the banks, for the real economy, and of course for the future of our grandchildren.

Then regulators, swallowing their pride, could perhaps, with luck, understand both that the main social purpose of banks is to allocate credit efficiently to the real economy; and that no major bank crises have ever resulted from excessive exposures to what was ex ante perceived as very risky, as these have always resulted from unexpected events, or from excessive exposure to what was ex ante considered very safe, but that ex post turned out to be very risky.

That could help to free us all from our banks being guided by dumb risk-weighted capital requirements… more ex ante perceived risk more capital – less risk less capital.

Not only do these cause our banks to misallocate credit to the real economy, like no credit to “risky” SMEs or entrepreneurs; but also to make our bank system more unstable by pushing the build-up of exposures to what is perceived, decreed or concocted as “very safe”, without requiring sufficient capital to cover for the unexpected events.

PS. DeepMind, or you Watson, if you would also care to explain this to those in the Financial Times, that would be doubly appreciated. I have tried to do so with literarily thousands of letters, but still no luck… I guess I am not as impressive as you are.

@PerKurowski ©

Please, if we are to stand a chance, we must not allow the fight for less environmental damages to be politicized

Sir, with respect of the threat of climate change, or, ‘the just plain huge environmental damages of which we do not know what consequences these will have though we might presume these will not be overly positive’, I do not agree with Clive Cookson’s conclusion that “a second Obama administration seems certain to do more [reducing carbon dioxide emissions] than a President Mitt Romney”… that is unless he considers taking a baby aspirin is a solid way to fight a tumor, “It shouldn’t have taken Sandy for US to debate science”, November 3. 

In fact given that the environmental challenge needs the cooperation of everyone if we are going to stand a chance, including by the way that of the poorest of the poor, the worst thing we can do is to politicize it, or allow the solutions to become the exclusive domain of some self defined especially conscientious high income earning groups. 

That we need accurate forecasts no one doubts; that governments are the best fitted to provide these services is probably true, but, as citizens it behooves us to always and continuously explore alternatives, like what if all money publicly spent was used for premiums to the 100 most accurate and important weather prognosis provided to the public each year… with a charge to all service providers for the 1o most important weather prognosis mistakes. 

When Cookson writes that “Mismanagement and under-investment threaten the US weather satellite programme”, I am quite sure that neither he nor I, have the faintest idea of how much of the threat corresponds to each of the two factors he lists. 

On a more personal note, for many years now, I have expressed surprise over the fact that those who seem most concerned about the environment, and thereby as I see it should be the most concerned with how scarce resources are used to meet the challenge, seem the most willing to throw resources at it with no contemplation at all given to how do that more efficiently.

This is indeed an embarrassing low for FT!

Sir not only did you publish John Coates’ “Traders would do well to track their hormones” April 15, in which, based on the study of the saliva of 17 male traders over eight days, the author suggests we complement the efforts of our bank regulators to drive risk out from banking, with driving out any risk taking stimulators such as testosterones from our trading floors, but you also have Clive Cookson reporting fully on the same nonsense including a photo of testosterone in action.

Unless this is a complete mess up of an April fool joke I sincerely think you owe your readers an apology. Are we to extend this type of risk adverseness litmus tests to the professionals working for the credit rating agencies too? Why do we not start with FT editors? Seeing that you completely lost control!