Well said Peggy. In fact well said everyone.
Far be it from me to put a dampener on the more medically orientated database - but I am of the opinion that we are trying to run before we can walk. I think it is a cracking (good) con - they are a genetic testing group who have patients at the heart of their ecept but I worry about our ability to create a statistically significant database without serious financial and human resource behind it - not to speak of expertise.
It might be worth getting in touch with a company called "23 and me" whom I have been introduced to and aree based in the US. Check out their website at 23andme.com. (can't do links yet - not old enough!) I have spoken to them and they are refreshing and pioneering in their approach.
I don't know whether they would be interested in getting involved in a patient database, but it is right up their street and I am sure I can make an introduction if one of you wants to talk to them.
Also I have access to our own Research Director - Dr Richard Wyse who has set up significant patient databases in the past and I am happy to ask him to assist in any way you wish.

As for the other database, I agree all Greg and Carey's comments on the Mission Statement except that I think that either the science database stands alone with a significant sponsor and we run the databse for all the other issues in the Mission statement as a stand alone project which will proceed at a much faster pace OR that we proceed with a non-scientific database to begin with which then may become more scientifically focussed given time. My view is that we must at all costs ensure quantity of data NOT quality in the first instance because without quantity we have very little to work with. If we ask for people's inside leg measurement from the outset I do not believe we will succeed in this venture.
Sorry - but that's my view.
Aside from this issue - I am excited about working with you all on this.

Tom