Standards matter for consumers

I grew up during wartime, and was a casualty as many in my generation were. Specifically, the Beta/VHS wars raged as video recording, home taping, and movie rental businesses grew. VHS survived, for a while, until DVDs came along. But the war hurt consumers, and didn’t result in the best format prevailing at the time. Most of us who were involved in professional video recording (as I came to be for a while) used beta, and preferred it until digital formats came along. It was simply a better, higher quality format. Consumers preferred VHS, but early BetaMax adopters found their libraries eventually obsolete and inaccessible when their machines died.

Numerous companies are vying for capturing part of the genomic blockchain market and many of our initial concerns for the privacy of consumer data and advancing scientific research impel us to work to protect both aims, understanding that others in this space share these aims. The alternative, where competitors create blockchains that cannot ensure the protection of consumer data or prevent interaction of chains to allow maximal use in scientific research, threatens to undermine the values we ascribe to: maximal protection of individual rights to data while encouraging science.

If consumers believe that the choices they make today for storing and sharing sensitive data may limit them in their connections to networks of similar data, as opposed to opening up a range of choices for transacting data, then they will be wary to move to blockchains while they wait for a clear “winner” to emerge. In the early days of automobiles, competing companies realized that by agreeing to certain standards they could ease adoption generally of the new technology, and make the lives of consumers better, as well as sell more cars in the process.

We have known that the genomic blockchain space would soon become crowded, and it is in the process of doing so. Competition is good, in general, to ensure progress, and time will tell which platforms will become best suited to the demands of the market, and which enjoy the largest consumer bases and market penetration. Meanwhile, it behooves those of us who share the goals of promoting individual ownership, benefit and control of genomic data, and advancing genomic science, to agree to develop mutually-beneficial standards, platforms that can communicate with each other, and mechanisms for people to more easily move their assets among our competing platforms, to avoid the sorts of monopolies that cell phones carriers and cable companies have had to cede for the sake of customer freedom. Consortia in science and technology, to create and advance standards, abound. The Gene Ontology Consortium is but one prominent example.

This is why in early 2018 EncrypGen first proposed the Genomic Blockchain Consortium, and why now we are actively involved in third-party efforts to bring others from the field together to create real standards. Specifically, we are proud and excited to be involved in the IEEE P2418.6 Standards Development — Genomics subcomittee along with representatives from such companies as DNAtix, Genomes.io, Nebula Genomics, and others. Invitations to every group and entity we know of in this space have gone out, and involvement and momentum are growing. As we develop standards, the gravitas and reach of the IEEE will enable us to better create systems that work across borders, ensure greater interaction and protection of user data, and build foundations for future application development. If you have been invited and haven’t yet become a part of our committee, or if we haven’t yet reached out to you, please contact us. Email me at drkoepsell@gmail.com or the subcommittee chair: Jenny Creed Geraghty, Clinical Genetic Scientist MSc., DipRCPath. We hope to see you in our weekly meetings as we pave the path for the future together.