There are a few flaws in the thinking here: One, that we can define a "healthy human" or that any humans can be found that are operating at full health. Two, that there is a single set of traits that defines a healthy human, or that it could be distilled via sampling and synthesizing data about many humans. Three, that any such indicators or traits they discover will not change over time.<p>There is undoubtedly the need for tremendous amounts of research into human physiology and health, but there's a very naive hubris that runs through all these grand analysis projects that promise to solve all human health woes. Our bodies are the most complex systems that we know of in the entire universe. The idea that we are anywhere close to understanding how they should optimally work is just completely daft.<p>Just look back at the promises made by the Human Genome Project in the early 90s. Yes, we've learned a lot since then, but mostly we've learned that the relationship between our bodies and our genes is far far more complicated than we imagined 25 years ago.
The limiting factor right now isn't the lack of clever algorithms or computational power, but the lack of data that covers enough people over enough time with enough depth and quality. Also, more of former can't make up for a lack of the latter, even if it's sexier, especially for a company like Google.<p>They should consider partnering with these guys: <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/medicine-gets-up-close-and-personal-1.14702.." rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/news/medicine-gets-up-close-and-person...</a>.
If they can truly protect the anonymity of donator data, I wouldn't mind to be part of it.<p>Heck, when I donate my blood I am already giving a lot of information to the blood center and they know my blood type and can tell if I have certain diseases of not. When I volunteer to do bone marrow match test, I don't know how the firm handles my data. I supposed they can protect my data.<p>I am not worried about Google knowing more about me or humans. I am more worried about how safe my records are with my clinics and hospitals. See [1]<p>Lastly, personal question: how do you get into Google X?<p>[1]: <a href="http://www.scmagazine.com/rhode-island-hospital-to-pay-150k-for-past-data-breach/article/362725/" rel="nofollow">http://www.scmagazine.com/rhode-island-hospital-to-pay-150k-...</a>
This reminds me of something Larry Page said at TED this year:<p><i>I say, wouldn't it be amazing if everyone's medical records were available anonymously to research doctors? And when someone accesses your medical record, a research doctor, they could see, you could see which doctor accessed it and why, and you could maybe learn about what conditions you have. I think if we just did that, we'd save 100,000 lives this year.<p>So I guess I'm just very worried that with Internet privacy, we're doing the same thing we're doing with medical records, is we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and we're not really thinking about the tremendous good that can come from people sharing information with the right people in the right ways.</i><p>Source: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mArrNRWQEso&t=839" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mArrNRWQEso&t=839</a> at 14:00.
I'm excited to know which diets, exercises and lifestyle define a healthy human, which I'm hoping this information will give me (assuming the information will be released).
This is very exciting at one level. We need a project like this to accomplish a "Species" level map of our biology.<p>Knowing a little bit about how data moves thru the Labs &
clinics systems however, and the widespread tentacles of bad actors like the NSA, this could be too juicy a prize to ignore.
What is to prevent the Feds (for instance) from knocking on their doors with an NSL for the data based on some trumped up link?