Fingerprints don't tell anyone what diseases you're likely to get.
Fingerprints don't show who your sibilings, parents, and children are.

Fingerprints are remarkable in that they are unique identifiers, that still don't say *anything* about you, other than, "this is a unique, identifiable person".

Law enforcement only sees DNA as identification. But the truth is so much more.

Insurers see DNA as an indicator of risk-factors.

Genealogists see DNA as a definitive way to track ancestry, forever linking someone to their parents and offspring.

Racial and ethnic radical-purists see DNA as a definitive way to determine if someone is "pure" or not.

Unless government can somehow insure that DNA is not used for purposes beyond identification, and can establish severe penalties if it is, then the only promise we have that it won't be abused is their word, and that means very little to me.

There's a gigantic unanswered question here: How does this scale?

Under the large-lecture system in place when I was at MIT ('92), 300+ students filled the lecture hall two times a day, 3 days a week. That is 600+ students taking class 8.01 (Intro Physics). This required one professor to deliver the lecture, and a handful of TA's to handle recitations and study groups.

Under the system described in the article, only 80 students are taught at a time. But *each* class requires a professor and a team of TA's. To handle 600+ students taking the class, it would require 8 classroom sessions, 3 times a week, each involving a prof and TA's. That's 24 hours a week the prof is spending in class teaching. (not even counting prep-time, grading papers, or office-hours).

This system, for whatever successes it might have, just doesn't seem to scale. It seems to put a huge load on the prof and TAs.