Genomics and me: DNA testing may not reveal as much about yourself as you'd hope
1–10 of 24 posts
Re: Genomics and me: DNA testing may not reveal as much about yourself as you'd hope
#2This brings up a number of problems with the current approaches to gathering signal from the noise of DNA, but it's making the deeper argument that DNA may not contain much useful information. I don't think it met the burden of proof for that argument. It's a popular argument: we want to believe that our attributes aren't predetermined, that we have free will, so we want to believe anything that downplays the role of nature in the nature vs. nurture debate. But really this is still a big unknown. I very much doubt that the difficulties we currently have with gathering useful information from DNA are unsolvable.
Re: Genomics and me: DNA testing may not reveal as much about yourself as you'd hope
#3This brings up a number of problems with the current approaches to gathering signal from the noise of DNA, but it's making the deeper argument that DNA may not contain much useful information. I don't think it met the burden of proof for that argument. It's a popular argument: we want to believe that our attributes aren't predetermined, that we have free will, so we want to believe anything that downplays the role of…
I think one of the problems is that the sequencing boon has led to a shift in grant funding and research direction towards global hypothesis generating studies rather than hypothesis driven studies. These may find statistical associations between DNA variations and phenotypes but tend to avoid doing the difficult detailed characterizations that will help us understand the functional / molecular context.
Re: Genomics and me: DNA testing may not reveal as much about yourself as you'd hope
#4This brings up a number of problems with the current approaches to gathering signal from the noise of DNA, but it's making the deeper argument that DNA may not contain much useful information. I don't think it met the burden of proof for that argument. It's a popular argument: we want to believe that our attributes aren't predetermined, that we have free will, so we want to believe anything that downplays the role of…
> we want to believe that our attributes aren't predetermined, that we have free will, so we want to believe anything that downplays the role of nature in the nature vs. nurture debate
Who wants to believe this? It seems pretty lop-sided to accuse the "nature"-skeptics (or "nurture"-proponents) of falling prey to confirmation bias, when our history is littered with much more evidence of the atrocities committed by eugenicists.
Even today, it seems that many people who are successful are desperate to find out how much it is their innate destiny, due to genetics. It certainly provides great justification for providing solely for yourself and your offspring instead of for caring for a big social safety net and whatnot.
Re: Genomics and me: DNA testing may not reveal as much about yourself as you'd hope
#5This brings up a number of problems with the current approaches to gathering signal from the noise of DNA, but it's making the deeper argument that DNA may not contain much useful information. I don't think it met the burden of proof for that argument. It's a popular argument: we want to believe that our attributes aren't predetermined, that we have free will, so we want to believe anything that downplays the role of…
DNA is just a small part of what makes up the functioning whole of an organism. The Transcriptome, Proteome, and the Metabolome are just as important to determining the outcomes of genes.
It's like understanding what parts are in your car but not knowing how much gas is in the tank, how far the pedal is pressed, or even what gear you're in. It's still an incomplete picture.
Disclosure: I studied cancer metabolism in grad school so I'm a little biased to think that the Metabolome is the functional endpoint of genetics and all its associated modifiers.
Re: Genomics and me: DNA testing may not reveal as much about yourself as you'd hope
#6> Two years ago, US consumers could see more than 240 detailed health and trait reports, including risk factors for heart attack and type 2 diabetes. Then, at the end of 2013, the Food and Drug Administration clamped down. They implied that 23andMe's tests were inaccurate. They also worried that some consumers would misconstrue the risks, seeking out unnecessary treatments and changing their medication regimes without speaking to their doctors.
I can't even begin to describe how much this enrages me: I, a purportedly-free citizen of a purportedly-free republic, am not permitted to pay a firm to do its best to give me accurate information, because some unelected third party is concerned that I may make bad decisions based on that information.
What business of the State's is it if someone chooses to change his medical regimen without consulting his physician? It's his regiment, not the State's; it's his health, not the State's.
I'm a free man: I should be permitted to consult the best firms and practitioners I can in order to make decisions for my own lifestyle.
Re: Genomics and me: DNA testing may not reveal as much about yourself as you'd hope
#7This brings up a number of problems with the current approaches to gathering signal from the noise of DNA, but it's making the deeper argument that DNA may not contain much useful information. I don't think it met the burden of proof for that argument. It's a popular argument: we want to believe that our attributes aren't predetermined, that we have free will, so we want to believe anything that downplays the role of…
I think one of the problems is that the sequencing boon has led to a shift in grant funding and research direction towards global hypothesis generating studies rather than hypothesis driven studies. These may find statistical associations between DNA variations and phenotypes but tend to avoid doing the difficult detailed characterizations that will help us understand the functional / molecular context.
True. You do have to generate hypotheses before you can use them to drive studies, though. Those statistical associations enable the detailed studies by telling them where to look.
Re: Genomics and me: DNA testing may not reveal as much about yourself as you'd hope
#8> Two years ago, US consumers could see more than 240 detailed health and trait reports, including risk factors for heart attack and type 2 diabetes. Then, at the end of 2013, the Food and Drug Administration clamped down. They implied that 23andMe's tests were inaccurate. They also worried that some consumers would misconstrue the risks, seeking out unnecessary treatments and changing their medication regimes withou…
The business of the state is to prevent false advertising, because it deprives the citizens of making informed decisions, and because it awards financial resources to those who are willing to profit by harming others.
It happens so that for health-related issues the bar for false advertising is higher than the for other products. I think it's for a good reason. The authority to set the bar was given to the FDA by the people's elected representatives.
Re: Genomics and me: DNA testing may not reveal as much about yourself as you'd hope
#9This brings up a number of problems with the current approaches to gathering signal from the noise of DNA, but it's making the deeper argument that DNA may not contain much useful information. I don't think it met the burden of proof for that argument. It's a popular argument: we want to believe that our attributes aren't predetermined, that we have free will, so we want to believe anything that downplays the role of…
DNA is just a small part of what makes up the functioning whole of an organism. The Transcriptome, Proteome, and the Metabolome are just as important to determining the outcomes of genes. It's like understanding what parts are in your car but not knowing how much gas is in the tank, how far the pedal is pressed, or even what gear you're in. It's still an incomplete picture. Disclosure: I studied cancer metabolism in…
Well, in the nature vs. nurture debate I'm not really interested in taking a side; I want to figure out the truth. I'm relatively certain that it's a split. I just want to caution against a common human bias in favor of nurture, which this article seems to be affected by.
Re: Genomics and me: DNA testing may not reveal as much about yourself as you'd hope
#10> Two years ago, US consumers could see more than 240 detailed health and trait reports, including risk factors for heart attack and type 2 diabetes. Then, at the end of 2013, the Food and Drug Administration clamped down. They implied that 23andMe's tests were inaccurate. They also worried that some consumers would misconstrue the risks, seeking out unnecessary treatments and changing their medication regimes withou…
I'm sure you appreciate the other side of that argument – that organisations should not be able to advertise medical devices and services without demonstrating that the results are accurate.
The idea that a medical services company and an individual consumer are on the same footing doesn't carry much weight for me. One of the obvious solutions is for a state body to set a standard for what accuracy is required in order to make medical services available; this is a pretty ideologically coherent attempt to address the fundamental inequality there.
I'm happy to hear an argument that the FDA over-regulates, or that other regulatory approaches could be more beneficial. But a complete free-for-all invites a return to the days of snake-oil patent medicines – and I don't think that's something anybody wants to see.