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

131–140 of 282 posts

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#131

Post by samtho »

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?

Federally, health insurers cannot use this data under GINA[0] and SB41[1] in California requires explicit permission be granted by the customer in order for the data to be shared with 3rd parties. In general, however, insurance companies are going to be reluctant to trust this information as it’s not established that it has real medical value outside the handful of markers we’ve clearly identified.

[0]: https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/dtcgenetictes...

[1]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#132

Post by welfare »

kibwen wrote: post #128
progbits wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they go bankrupt they should destroy all the data but of course they will rather sell it to recover at least a bit of money.

Remember that it's good opsec to rotate your genome every six months.

That's hilarious. I'm imagining CRISPR as a tool to scramble your DNA every so often.

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#133

Post by dabber »

michaelt wrote: post #60
nirvael wrote: post #7

Seems like 23andMe is two businesses: consumer and a B2B data business. The consumer side is clearly struggling because of the problems mentioned in the article (they only need one test in their life, public perception is bad because their security has had breaches). So this needs a pivot where you can change the public's perception from a one-time test to continuous health monitoring through blood markers or somethi…

> But why not focus on the B2B side? Sell access to their databases. I'm sure computational biology and/or pharma companies need this information. Are you sure? I mean, presumably there are different types of DNA testing. Doesn't 23andme run basically the cheapest test they can get away with? A user can't tell if the test measured 16 bytes or 1.6 gigabytes of genetic information, and if I was trying to launch a consu…

> Doesn't 23andme run basically the cheapest test they can get away with?

No. That's part of why they're test is so expensive and their financials are so lackluster. They are apparently using a customized version of the lllumina's Global Screening Array according to their website and several other sources that show up in search results. That's a legit research quality genotyping platform from a world leading laboratory in the genetics space. This post from 2020 has a decent high level overview about it in the context of 23&me [0] though it might be slightly outdated by now and I've never heard of the company (xcode?) that wrote it (nor did I bother to look at what their product is.)

> If I was trying to launch a consumer DNA geneology service, I'd want to get network effects, so I'd want a test that was very easily affordable.

That's a pretty neive perspective. It ignores the value propositions of 23&me's product, economies of scale in the direct to consumer genetic testing space which were in large part enabled by 23&me's success, and all of the thorny bits related to questions about accuracy when presenting results. Not to mention that 23&me certainly capitalized on the network effect (which is being criticized a fair amount in this thread.)

> Who says their records are thorough enough to be valuable to drug companies?

GSK. See my other comment in this thread [1]

[0] https://www.xcode.life/23andme/23andme-v5-chip-dna-raw-data-...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39202583#39204621

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#134

Post by lestertomlin »

I mean this is the Silicon Valley playbook. Get raised by some ultra connected family. Start a company, get money from your family then get pictures on Inc mag as some self made genius founder.

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#135

Post by carbocation »

timy2shoes wrote: post #123
epistasis wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My suspicion has always been that this sort of data–common SNPs from all comers and no specific phenotype collection–is not very useful for any sort of drug design. And if it is, publicly available data will be just as good as 23andMe's larger amount. It was a bet worth trying, IMHO, but always a risky bet. And with bio, you don't find out if your bets work for a decade or more, because the iteration cycle is 10x slo…

My suspicion has been that SNP array data is not that useful for drug discovery. They’re targeting the most common/variable SNPs, which I suspect don’t have a large health effect (except for maybe late in life, otherwise how would they get passed down). I would suspect the more valuable targets would be rarer, or arise de novo (as is common in cancer, eg driver mutations).

The effect size of common SNPs is not informative about the effect of drugging their related genes. For example, the common variants near HMG-CoA reductase have very small but significant (confidently nonzero) effects. Yet drugging HMG-CoA reductase can reduce LDL cholesterol by ~40-50% (statins).

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#136

Post by carbocation »

mminer237 wrote: post #126
babypuncher wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like selling it to insurance companies who can use the data to deny coverage.

This is illegal, at least in the US.

Illegal for health insurance companies. But not so for life insurance, or disability insurance or long-term care.

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#137

Post by iancmceachern »

logifail wrote: post #127
iancmceachern wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be far smarter for them to try to sell the data to drug companies. In the words of Boromir: "One does not just become a drug company."

> It would be far smarter for them to try to sell the data to drug companies. Haven't they already been trying this ... for years? (Way back in 2018): "GSK and 23andMe sign agreement to leverage genetic insights for the development of novel medicines" https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/media/press-releases/gsk-and-23and...

I wonder why that didn't work out for them...

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#138

Post by SOVIETIC-BOSS88 »

welfare wrote: post #132
kibwen wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember that it's good opsec to rotate your genome every six months.

That's hilarious. I'm imagining CRISPR as a tool to scramble your DNA every so often.

That sounds like a terrifying cyberpunk novel that I would definitely read. Although I hope the future is not that bleak.

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#139

Post by AndrewDucker »

pc86 wrote: post #130
supahfly_remix wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the rest of the quotation makes sense to me, but I'm wondering about this part: > "We should never measure an entrepreneur by the standards of a rock-solid businessman". Is the author saying that a rock-solid businessman follows a higher code of ethics?

The sentence immediately preceding your quote are things that a "rock-solid businessman" would never do according to Rind. So it sounds like he is saying that theoretical person has a higher code of ethics for whatever reason.

Because they're intending to be around for the next decade or more, they need to preserve their appearance of probity, and so they'll do fewer things which would make them look bad.

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#140

Post by westhanover »

rchaud wrote: post #24

This story makes 23andme sound like a non-fraud version of Theranos, with some of the same issues around business viability, dodging the FDA, relentless PR and funding from rich friends. If a healthcare startup get shout-outs from Oprah, SNL and branded Barbie dolls, is that a bad sign?

[flagged]
Post reply on HN