Also, how does this device perform a test for a viral infection and for a bacterial infection, if the tests are unique and chemical? Does it use a particular substance for each test, which has to be refilled per use? (Again, I have no idea how this stuff works.)
I know that 23andme continues to produce new information about my genes as new studies are done to find genetic markers for various diseases and traits, which is pretty cool. If there were a device that detected viral and bacterial RNA/DNA, would that be software extensible?
Beyond that, these testing systems probably can't manage the sensitivity and specificity of a properly run diagnostic lab. That's fine for the setting they're being considered in, because those labs don't exist, are hard to reach or can be easily overwhelmed in an outbreak, but for a developed world setting? I don't really see it. Home diagnostics for infectious diseases over a broad range of potential pathogens is a really hard technical challenge with no real payoff - you still need to go to the doctor.
Lab results alone do not a medically responsible treatment plan make.
And, as an epidemiologist, the ready availability of antibiotics without any interaction with a doctor is something I'd be pretty comfortable classifying as inherently irresponsible.
Quote from the article:
"Blood from a patient is drawn through microscopic channels where it then meets chemicals that react with HIV and syphilis antibodies to produce a color change. This can then be picked up by a set of photocells in the dongle, and the results are then sent to an app on the attached smartphone or computer."
This makes detection of both viral and bacterial infections possible with very low-cost tools; the fact that it can detect both makes me believe that detecting practically any infectious disease (or at least any infectious disease that has identified biomarkers in blood, or other easily obtainable bodily fluid) is on the near horizon.
One could buy this dongle, or one like it, and new diseases could be added via software upgrades (or by in-app purchases for the diseases you want to check for). This would potentially make doctors office visits obsolete for all but serious disease and chronic conditions. No need to go get checked for strep when you have a sore throat (of course, getting the antibiotics to treat it is another regulatory hurdle people in the US would face), lower need for cities and universities to provide STD testing, though treatment and education would still likely be within their perview. It allows better self-management of HIV, hepatitis, Lyme disease, and other chronic viral illnesses through more rapid and frequent testing.
Even if this doesn't evolve to include other types of detection, I would still happily pay several hundred dollars for a re-usable STD testing tool. I like to get tested every 6 months, but the hassle and cost of going to the doctor or Planned Parenthood or online testing lab is high (free or low cost testing is available, but you trade much more hassle for the lower cost...among my friends who get tested at the city health center, they usually spend an hour or two waiting, which is not a cost I'm willing to pay to save a couple hundred bucks). If I could test for HIV for free before every new partner (and, hell, make it a practice to test with every partner), that'd be fantastic.
Another article about this was posted a week or so ago to HN, but it didn't get any comments or many upvotes, which was disappointing, as this seems like entirely revolutionary technology, to me. And, it makes me want to go into medical tech because of how huge the potential is (but it would be an entirely new field for me, so my ability to be productive in it would take a while to develop).