privacy

A founder of the field of synthetic biology is selling data from his own DNA as a nonfungible token, or NFT, through Nebula Genomics, a personal genome company he cofounded.

Some researchers have turned their focus to artificial intelligence to study an underused symptom common to most respiratory pathogens—cough.

Scientists have raised questions about the dataset published in The Lancet last week that triggered the suspension of clinical trials around the world—and about Surgisphere Corporation, the company behind the study.

If governments were to use SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests to manage who can re-enter the workplace, society must accept a sacrifice of privacy.

The Department of Justice plans to require cheek swabs at the border, with the data then entered in a national criminal database.

Scientists are working to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of sharing.

LunaDNA receives Securities and Exchange Commission approval to treat the data as currency.

Agencies such as the NIH reward the discovery of vulnerabilities in their computer systems—before criminals can exploit them.

A security researcher found the email addresses and encrypted passwords of more than 92 million users of the genealogy site on a private server outside the company.

Luna DNA, Nebula Genomics, and other “bio-brokers” will allow customers to make money by granting access to their genetic and personal information for research purposes.

The agency says it has taken various steps to ensure the privacy of participants’ data. 

The tool cannot predict a person’s face from DNA, say researchers—including some listed as coauthors on the publication. 

December 2015's selection of notable quotes

Genomic data shared via the Beacon Project are vulnerable to privacy breaches, scientists show.

Research participants aren’t always clear on open data policies when consenting to studies.

Researchers identify people by the unique combinations of microbes found in and on their bodies.

In a defamation lawsuit involving anonymous comments on the post-publication peer review website, a judge requests potentially identifying information.

Judges rule that climate scientist Michael Mann’s communications are not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.

Four UK research funding agencies firm up their stance against deliberate attempts by researchers to re-identify supposedly anonymous study participants.