Have questions? Visit https://www.reddit.com/r/SNPedia


From SNPedia

hi there i am a uk -based female social scientist really interested in the online interaction around open source genomics, and whether new cybergenomics- related communities are being catalysed. i'd be really interested to know whether people (for example, the 55 people who have made their genomes public here) are using this site or similar sites to discuss the implications of their genomes, particular SNPs, or discussing the results of others. i can see that in various places theres chat as people reflect individually on their SNP results, discuss different results, using different bits of software; that people discuss what they think this 'means' for them in terms of their health- and at this point often enrol other sorts of talk eg what they feel- their views and values- , using analogies, making jokes, talking about the importance of open source as a "public good", etc. theres a bit of talk on this site and on others- wondering if facebook pages relating to specific SNPs are being set up, for example? and whow and why people combine bio, technical, and more social information to construct knowledge claims. this is really fascinating! apols if a bit waffly. wondering how this will all develop as a social cyber/bio hybrid phenomena. alex

Most of the 55 appear to have little interaction with their data, but have instead found that this was something which they were willing to share, in part because it requires no active effort after a one time delivery. User:Meightysix is perhaps the biggest exception since he's been quite prolific but others do occasionally interact as well. For better and worse, SNPedia/Promethease makes it possible to add value to your data, while remaining anonymous and giving nothing back. This is the profile of the majority of our users. The 23andMe message boards and several yahoo groups seem to generate the most active discussions of individual SNPs. At their worst, these discussions are little more than horoscopes, but at their best they are genuine participatory scientific research. For now only a few people have their data, and most of them seem a bit overwhelmed by the volume of data, and underwhelmed by the limited certainty. All this gets a bit better and easier each day. SNPedia is patient. Cariaso 06:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Cariaso: thanks for replying, and for the 'cyber-leads' you've given me- will chase these up. Am still thinking this through and don't have the empirical evidence to back this up, but am wondering if one might make a distinction between those original "PGP10" (and now, the 'genomes unzipped' 10) who mostly went public with their personal identities as well as their actual genomes (and who perhaps tend to be more "out there" in the blogosphere, etc)- and the PGP1k/ and the majority of the 55 SNPwiki-ers here, who have, as far as i can tell, mostly chosen to keep their personal identities a secret- ie, they have remained anonymous in terms of "who they are" on a social level, whilst providing open source public access to "who they are" on a genomic level (insofar as 'the science' enables this). i do wonder how the interface between the social, the cyber and the biological will develop and think this is fascinating. alex