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

23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

blog.23andme.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 245 posts

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#161

Post by justincormack »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #121
im3w1l wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this isnt a good solution. Imagine the following scenario. A disease hits with p=0.001. To cure it is Very Expensive. Everyone gets insurance that covers it. Now imagine we have a test, that can predict it with certainty. Very soon only those with positive results will want insurance. The insurance against it will become unprofitable and discontinued.

Insurance is a pretty stupid model for health-care financing, in any case. It's not "insurance" if you know that everybody will eventually need to file a claim. But that's one of those inconvenient truths that American politics refuses to confront.

Indeed true. And it seems to make an extremely expensive system out of it. But it also manages to do much of the worlds medical research so there are right bits amid the wrongs.

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#162

Post by khomenko »

Shenglong wrote: post #136

Just a note, especially for non-Europeans who are thinking of doing this: I just used 23andme from Canada during the $49 A/B testing. Delivery was next-day, and other than 15ml of saliva being a lot to collect, the process was pretty smooth. They say it'll take 2-3 weeks, but realistically it took them about 4 business days to process my sample. Unfortunately, almost all the results are for Europeans. There may not b…

It's a chicken and egg problem. The more people like you purchase the service, the less European it will become. It has made huge strides in the last couple of years, but there is a way to go still.

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#163

Post by rm999 »

mvleming wrote: post #133
hop wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, that's what happened. Also, procedures were different back then, so we could have many more siblings, hope we didn't hook up in college.

The percentages I've heard are all over the place, but a decent number of children are actually not genetically related to their fathers. (I've heard anywhere between 3% and 30%.) One theory that's been postulated is that women have affairs to increase the genetic diversity of the sperm that compete for her egg, thereby increasing the chances that her children will have good genes.

This was discussed in 'Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors'. I don't remember all the details, but I think it discussed the same research as this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/701286.stm

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#164

Post by mvleming »

justincormack wrote: post #157
mvleming wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I asked you "Why do you take your hand off a hot stove?" you might say because it hurts. But the fact that it hurts for us when we put our hand on the stove is our genes trying to keep themselves alive, because otherwise they risk being killed. In the same way, a person might say they had an affair for whatever reason, but really its their genes who want to be able to pass on themselves. (Edited for clarity.)

Not really. That's a theory and it is one that is hard to disprove experimentally. It is a much stronger theory than evolution, saying that every action is correctly designed to optimise gene transmission. Essentially it is trying to say that we are at a global maximum in a space that is probably more nonlinear. In fact our genes may well be suboptimal in some respects even if you think they have "control". The conto…

I completely agree with you. I don't believe that every action is correctly designed to optimize gene transmissions and I think you put it into very eloquent words with: "it is trying to say that we are at a global maximum in a space that is probably more nonlinear."

However, I think that there are certain actions that we take that are clearly defined by our genetics, like the fact that we eat, or that we have sex. And having affairs is one of those.

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#165

Post by Strshps1MoreTim »

mcherm wrote: post #135
mvleming wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The percentages I've heard are all over the place, but a decent number of children are actually not genetically related to their fathers. (I've heard anywhere between 3% and 30%.) One theory that's been postulated is that women have affairs to increase the genetic diversity of the sperm that compete for her egg, thereby increasing the chances that her children will have good genes.

> One theory that's been postulated is that women have affairs to increase the genetic diversity of the sperm that compete for her egg, thereby increasing the chances that her children will have good genes. That would be better expressed like this: > One theory that's been postulated is that women have affairs. The speculation about the reason for the affairs is just silly. Seriously. This made-up pseudo-evolutionary…

Ufff, Eternal September on HN. 10 woman vs Darwin /s

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#166

Post by return0 »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #154
return0 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of rationalizing doesn't sound really serious. Does that not imply that women deceit their partners and are thus genetically predisposed liars? Also, if she has chosen a partner it means he (and his sperm) are better genetically. If anything, she should be avoiding others' (inferior) sperm.

The theory is that the woman would want the more hearty sperm, but also want the father who is more faithful and more able to provide. It's a sound evolutionary strategy.

How is it sound? Bearing the children of a male that is not a proven provider is more risky than bearing the children of a proven provider (the children will thus be more likely to be providers themselves). The sperm competition would be based solely on sperm motility which is a very poor indicator of evolutionary advantage.

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#167

Post by cynix »

Shenglong wrote: post #136

Just a note, especially for non-Europeans who are thinking of doing this: I just used 23andme from Canada during the $49 A/B testing. Delivery was next-day, and other than 15ml of saliva being a lot to collect, the process was pretty smooth. They say it'll take 2-3 weeks, but realistically it took them about 4 business days to process my sample. Unfortunately, almost all the results are for Europeans. There may not b…

> 15ml of saliva being a lot to collect

Wasn't it 2ml?

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#168

Post by justincormack »

mvleming wrote: post #164
justincormack wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. That's a theory and it is one that is hard to disprove experimentally. It is a much stronger theory than evolution, saying that every action is correctly designed to optimise gene transmission. Essentially it is trying to say that we are at a global maximum in a space that is probably more nonlinear. In fact our genes may well be suboptimal in some respects even if you think they have "control". The conto…

I completely agree with you. I don't believe that every action is correctly designed to optimize gene transmissions and I think you put it into very eloquent words with: "it is trying to say that we are at a global maximum in a space that is probably more nonlinear." However, I think that there are certain actions that we take that are clearly defined by our genetics, like the fact that we eat, or that we have sex. A…

I agree absolutely it is more likely. And I read The Selfish Gene. But how could you disprove that theory? it is sort of too obviously true, if you see what I mean. Which is why I brought up the homosexuality counterexample. So I don't think it should be taken as undeniable, even though it is plausible.

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#170

Post by javert »

chad_oliver wrote: post #159
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we shouldn't care about privacy here? That's pretty serious if it was how I thought.

No, he's merely saying that we are more privacy-conscious than the average group of people. I don't think he was claiming that was good or bad, just abnormal.

I read it as "Only on hacker news [insert good thing here]", and I agree with that sentiment, whether it was the intent or not. I think people caring a lot about privacy and issues like that is one reason I really like this place.
Post reply on HN