Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

23andMe's Fall

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 282 posts

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#211

Post by justrealist »

astrange wrote: post #151
belval wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who paid for 23andme+, it was pretty much a scam anyway, I got maybe 4-5 more reports over the year, all of which were for random popular ailments like "Anxiety" where the link between your genes and the disease(?) are pretty dubious in the literature and the takeaway was "you are 5% more likely to experience anxiety".

> where the link between your genes and the disease(?) are pretty dubious in the literature This is inescapable; genetics usually can't show causation, for instance because you can't do an experiment where you change someone's genes. Geneticists seem to deal with this by using statistics like GWAS that are obviously just correlation, adding a sentence that correlation doesn't show causation, and then just proceeding…

Please have some awareness of how little thought you are putting into dismissing a field where thousands of very smart people are working on solving the problem you describe. In fact, you can correct for the exact problem you describe with sibling studies where people have the same environment but different genes.

Have maybe a small ounce of humility in this respect.

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#212

Post by kube-system »

mjevans wrote: post #199
j-wags wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes me wonder if there could be strong enough laws around protecting genetic info (for example penalties that pierce the corporate veil) that those with fiduciary responsibility to the company could argue that destroying the data is really in the shareholders' best interest. I'm completely uninformed in this area. Is there precedent for anything like this in the modern day?

Upgrade this to any medically adjacent data. ALL of the DNA data should be covered under HIPPA or something similar.

Genetic information is PHI and is already covered under HIPAA. The problem is that, like most companies, 23andMe isn't a HIPAA covered entity. Because they're not a healthcare provider or health insurer, it doesn't apply to them.

Genetic information is also controlled by other laws such as GINA. So it is already some of the most controlled health data there is. But that's not a very high bar in the US.

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#213

Post by nameless912 »

ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #194
ilamont wrote: post #77

This is a damning indictment of Wojcicki's management of the company. Failed execution on the drug development strategy over 10+ years, lying about growth, pushing out the cofounder, never making a profit, hack that went undiscovered for months ... about the only area she's had success is raising money and that's in large part thanks to being a member of the Silicon Valley elite. If she can't convince her family, fri…

I want to learn the secret dark arts of VC capital raise on lies. I don't need the money but more for the hacking.

Unending confidence and carefully curated reality distortion fields. Having watched the CEO at a previous job do it, it's infuriating and a gigantic pain in the ass for engineers to have a leader lie to investors and then have to deal with the fallout as deadlines approach.

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#214

Post by astrange »

justrealist wrote: post #211
astrange wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where the link between your genes and the disease(?) are pretty dubious in the literature This is inescapable; genetics usually can't show causation, for instance because you can't do an experiment where you change someone's genes. Geneticists seem to deal with this by using statistics like GWAS that are obviously just correlation, adding a sentence that correlation doesn't show causation, and then just proceeding…

Please have some awareness of how little thought you are putting into dismissing a field where thousands of very smart people are working on solving the problem you describe. In fact, you can correct for the exact problem you describe with sibling studies where people have the same environment but different genes. Have maybe a small ounce of humility in this respect.

> Please have some awareness of how little thought you are putting into dismissing a field where thousands of very smart people are working on solving the problem you describe.

Thousands of very smart people do a lot of dumb things. People still work on string theory. The people working on proper causal inference are also smart, work hard, and have Nobel Prizes.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2021/pop...

On the other hand, the people doing genetics who aren't careful about it produced the 23AndMe report which says I have a "17% chance of having green eyes". Against what counterfactual?

> In fact, you can correct for the exact problem you describe with sibling studies where people have the same environment but different genes.

"Correcting" is a wrong way to think about it. Generally speaking, overcorrection is worse than undercorrection because of collider bias. You need to choose a study design that's correct in the first place.

You're describing a natural experiment, which is better than a GWAS of self-selected 23AndMe customers, but does have problems (silly one: selection bias because the sample only includes people with siblings) and more importantly is only guaranteed in the study environment (eg people who live in the UK in 2008) but gets reported without identifying what that environment is.

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#215

Post by LAC-Tech »

I'm no economist, but isn't that to be expected?

- A burst of people take your DNA test

- Much less people will subsequently, as your target becomes younger people who are now old enough to pay for DNA tests.

Seems like you'd have to whether being way under-capacity for the initial burst, and then essentially a return to normal.

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#216

Post by nradov »

codeflo wrote: post #208
nradov wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The health data is pretty underwhelming for most people, outside of a few highly studied genes like BRCA variants. I did a genetic test and it reported that according to one study I had something like a 3% risk of a shoulder injury which is higher than the population average of 2%. So what am I supposed to do with that information, wear shoulder pads or something?

No, but in theory, an insurance company could use this to calculate your risks differently. Even a 1% signal isn't worthless.

Due to GINA, medical insurance companies aren't allowed to use that data for setting rates or denying coverage so it's useless to them. In theory life insurance companies could use it, but at the scale they operate it's not worth the cost.

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#217

Post by robotburrito »

redder23 wrote: post #205

Only total morons pay to let a company sell their genes. Happy downvoting, I know this will offend a bunch of people in this crowd. In a sane world this thing should have never work in the first place but given the world is full of morons who are dumb enough to actually pay for shit like that its quite an accomplishment to run a company like that into the ground. I read articles of people sending in banana DNA 23AndM…

I understand your take, and in many ways regret sending my data to them, but through this service I did find 6+ siblings I was not aware of, as well as my father. So it does provide some benefits.

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#218

Post by sahila »

vrc wrote: post #177
jonathankoren wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a damning indictment of Wojcicki's management of the company. I mean she was leader of YouTube. Why wouldn't she be able to develop a drug development strategy based on genomics? But hey, rich people can do anything right?

That’s her sister of famed “owned the garage Google started in” lore. This is the sister that was married to Larry Page.

Married to Sergey*.

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#219

Post by ilovetux »

dkarl wrote: post #100
al_borland wrote: post #81

Now we get to see the compromises they choose when desperation sinks in. I think getting the results of one of these tests would be interested, but I haven’t been able to bring myself to do it, due to trust issues related to handing over something like that to a company with an unproven track record when it comes to privacy and integrity. I figured it was only a matter of time before they were hacked or they decided…

> I haven’t been able to bring myself to do it, due to trust issues related to handing over something like that Same here. Imagine the value of this data in the hands of insurance companies that are willing to misuse it. Will we, as a society, be able to prevent that "value" from being realized?

I'm more worried about a scenario like Elon Musk buying the company for the data and making the data available to extremists who would love to target people of certain ethnic backgrounds who happen to be in positions of power.

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#220

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

txru wrote: post #179
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they file for bankruptcy, they cannot legally destroy the data. The data is a salable asset, the law requires them to preserve it so that it can be sold and the money returned to creditors. And many of the promises they have given about it's use can and will be broken by the trustees dissolving the company. The thing you need to consider when you give data to a company is not "will these people misuse this", but "…

My mom, dad and sister have all done 23andMe, so it doesn't matter if I have or not. They have an entirely complete genome for me. I agree with your limited license idea. It's just not ok that something like that can be dischargeable in bankruptcy. We don't have the ability to refuse consent in the first place, if our family provide it.

How can they link your family's DNA to you if they don't have a profile or account for you? How do they know you exist? And if they know you exist, how do they know you are related to that particular family without some DNA information about you to link to them?
Post reply on HN