DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[frogdreaming]

w2p,

Although the popular science article was published this month, the research was done in 2002. It is oooolllddd news.

How old is it?

It is so old that when it was written, DNAP was still working on Retinome, before they abandoned the trademark, fired all the scientists, and gave up on 'self reporting' DNA samples.

Is the information still valid?

WHo knows, but DNAP has not let out a peep regarding the article, one would think that they would at least validate it with a 'mention'.

Why would they ignore such a potential PR coup?

Perhaps because the schedule and claims published in the article are no longer viable, and they need to maintain some plausible distance from them.