Your Genes-- do you want to know?

[RandomGuy]

Hit the nail on the head. Mass screening of everyone genome simply doesn't give us meaningful information in this day and age, as surprising as it may seem. There are really only a handful of illnesses that can be assessed with genetic consuelling (Huntington's, Fragile X syndrome, etc). Most genetic disease with a family history are routinely screened already for family members.

Simply getting a list of two dozen genes that are may be mildly associated with disorders from say, schizophrenia to cancer, is not really helpful for individuals.

1) We have not identified the majority of genes that are involved in disease
2) We do not know the extent to which identified genes play a role in disease or interact with other undiscovered genes or with the environment.

Those are my main concerns. I don't even think we're not even at a stage where we can even potentially begin to use genetic information to discriminate individuals in society (which of course, is another ethical concern).

The dude from the OP with the company that intends to do this says that ther are hundreds/thousands of identified risk factors.

We are learning about genetic triggers by leaps and bounds. I forsee testing of this kind being pretty common if not universal within about 20 years. You will get a computerized printout after getting children/infants/embryos tested.

[The Reckoning]

if i did i'd just look at the tag

[resistanze]

The dude from the OP with the company that intends to do this says that ther are hundreds/thousands of identified risk factors.

We are learning about genetic triggers by leaps and bounds. I forsee testing of this kind being pretty common if not universal within about 20 years. You will get a computerized printout after getting children/infants/embryos tested.

Sure, there's dozens of genes associated with increase risk of specific to a disease. But I don't think that paints the whole picture if that's what the article was saying. Identifying genetic risk factors for disease is commonly performed by analyzing single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in families with a history of the disorder and determining how a specific gene(s) are inherited across family generations. If a certain gene or a group of genes are identified, they might conclude that this gene is 'associated' with an increased risk of a certain disease. However, in most cases, this tells us nothing of the role of the gene or anything we can do about it.

What's the point, for instance, of finding out that gene X has been associated with a 15% increase in schizophrenia? It's not like we can pre-emptive measures against the illness even it were possible, based on certain gene(s) that are associated with a higher risk. Also, identifying a gene associated with a increased disease in one population doesn't necessarily mean its applicative in another population, living in a different environment. There are so many variables that I question the usefulness of such data at this time.

Overall, I think the implication of this technology is overstated by the article, at least at this time. After reading Quake's milestone paper, it's clear to me that he was describing the novelty of his technique, not so much how his technique will be applied to 'personalized medicine'. I do believe it may have some usefulness in the future, however.

[RandomGuy]

Sure, there's dozens of genes associated with increase risk of specific to a disease. But I don't think that paints the whole picture if that's what the article was saying. Identifying genetic risk factors for disease is commonly performed by analyzing single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in families with a history of the disorder and determining how a specific gene(s) are inherited across family generations. If a certain gene or a group of genes are identified, they might conclude that this gene is 'associated' with an increased risk of a certain disease. However, in most cases, this tells us nothing of the role of the gene or anything we can do about it.

What's the point, for instance, of finding out that gene X has been associated with a 15% increase in schizophrenia? It's not like we can pre-emptive measures against the illness even it were possible, based on certain gene(s) that are associated with a higher risk. Also, identifying a gene associated with a increased disease in one population doesn't necessarily mean its applicative in another population, living in a different environment. There are so many variables that I question the usefulness of such data at this time.

Overall, I think the implication of this technology is overstated by the article, at least at this time. After reading Quake's milestone paper, it's clear to me that he was describing the novelty of his technique, not so much how his technique will be applied to 'personalized medicine'. I do believe it may have some usefulness in the future, however.

I pretty much agree. It is not really all that useful or applicable right now, or even in 3 to 5 years, but 10-20 years down the road is another matter.

Roughly assuming Moores Law still holds, that would make computing power about 32-500+ times greater than today, making crunching data concerning genes and risk factors much easier.

The question we need to start asking/answering/thinking about is what do we do about it?

Require everybody submit to genetic testing? Allow health insurers to require this?

[easjer]

But even if there is a risk analysis, it doesn't give you answers.

You may be more prone to heart disease, for instance, but that doesn't account for lifestyle and environment. That's the problem with risk analysis - it's an incomplete picture. And requiring everyone to be tested and giving that information over to the government or insurance companies - I do have a problem with that, I think.