The most memorable topic discussed during the interview was the intersectionality of medicine and prediction. Church discusses how predictions are rooted in the idea that many genetic conditions are medically actionable, which encourages the prediction-making process in the first place. The ability to alter one's genome in response to what appears as genetic destiny motivates predictions. This raises interesting questions concerning the ethics of gene therapy. Individuals may choose not to make predictions if they know it's not medically actionable; thus, limiting their knowledge of 'inevitable' personal health outcomes.
In terms of the implications of this research on society's future, we can see that the human genome project can greatly alter perceptions of human health and increase the scope of preventative medicine. This might encourage individuals to experiment with the boundaries of ethically acceptable modes of genome editing and predicting one's health. This could raise serious concerns involving genetic engineering of the human body to promote human health while simultaneously the quality of human life.
https://www.labxchange.org/library/items/lb:HarvardX:9fa146f4:lx_simulation:1?fullscreen=true
One interesting thing you brought up is the correlation between actionability and motivation to predict. You mentioned that the more something is actionable, the more people can predict it. I wonder if the inverse is true: the more accurate we are able to predict something, the more effort probably goes into seeing if we can actually effect that future?