Comment by postflopclarity
Comment by postflopclarity 13 hours ago
the implication was misleading, yes. the implication being that California has database of its citizens' genetic data. when the reality is that CA has a _physical sample_ of blood.
Comment by postflopclarity 13 hours ago
the implication was misleading, yes. the implication being that California has database of its citizens' genetic data. when the reality is that CA has a _physical sample_ of blood.
On the other hand blood samples degrade over time depending on how you store it. This makes DNA sequencing more difficult and/or impossible. Presumably the ROI (in a non-dystopian society) of storing those sample long-term doesn't make sense, especially if the primary usecase is screening for diseases (a random PDF from the Association of Public Health Laboratories says biomonitoring/biothreat samples are stored 1 year https://www.aphl.org/AboutAPHL/publications/Documents/ID_Spe... ).
So yes a collection of blood sample is technically also a collection of DNA sequences, but it has an expiry date (a short one compared to the lifespan of an individual!) contrary to a DNA sequence that's pure data.
A collection of cars is also a collection of steering wheels, a collection of tires, a collection of seats, a collection of engines a collection of seats, ...
as blood contains white blood cells, and these cells tend to contain DNA, yes a collection of identified blood samples is also a collection of DNA (molecules).
A DNA collection doesn't need to have been sequenced to qualify as a DNA collection.