Mostly for one reason alone. Genetic association testing.
To get statistical power necessary to associate variants with complex genetic traits, we need very large sample sizes (hundreds of thousands are good, millions of individuals are better).
If everyone clings to their genomes in fear of what bad-actors might discover, we will never discover anything at all. Cures included.
You’re right. I also find it telling that John Sotos doesn’t give a single argument for his recommendation. He simply “proclaims” that you shall not share your genome “without good reason”. He says that everything in life is a cost–benefit balance but that’s an empty phrase. What are the costs in this scenario? I’m not saying they are nil, but they’re probably negligible compared to the benefits you mention, especially considering that theft of genomic material would be trivial for a vested actor. No need for you to share anything willingly.
The DNA you leave behind when you touch things can actually be more useful than just the cellular DNA isolated from a genome test and put into a database.
DNA analysis of your microbiota can indicate more than just what you are or who you are, but also your current health status, where you have been, and who you associate with. It would also be one way to distinguish between identical twins.
There's a reason databases exist. Consolidated and normalized data is light years easier to obtain and less time consuming than seeking out individual pieces of disparate data.
Mostly for one reason alone. Genetic association testing.
To get statistical power necessary to associate variants with complex genetic traits, we need very large sample sizes (hundreds of thousands are good, millions of individuals are better).
If everyone clings to their genomes in fear of what bad-actors might discover, we will never discover anything at all. Cures included.