Slashdot Mirror


How To Check Yourself For Abnormal Genes

AnneWoahHickey writes "While the State of California was harassing personalized genomics companies, and hindering the development of personalized medicine, Wired was preparing a guide to genetic testing. It explains how to make sense of the massive sets of raw data offered by 23andMe or deCODEme, and a way to check yourself for genetic abnormalities that are not covered by microarray tests. Facing a medical community that is fiercely resistant to change, the fate of personalized medicine is truly in the hands of consumers."

4 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. Online Genetic Testing = Scam by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 4, Interesting
    --
    "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
  2. Re:Important caveats by stranger_to_himself · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wired kindly point out that to get any ethically sound advice you should go to a genetic counsellor.

    Why the rest of the article is there is then a bit bewlidering. It's like they're saying if you want meaningless information and bad or dangerous advice, and you want to pay a lot of money for it, these are the places to go.

  3. you can get tested, no big deal by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    specialized companies test genes. brac gene (breast cancer), apoe (alzheimer's), fragile x, etc. you can do this by mail even

    just make sure to use a name like donald duck or dick johnson. you don't want this info getting to insurance companies

    might as well test that little 1 year old (not any older, consider the trauma for the kid) for parentage too. it has been speculated that something like 10% of babies born before the age of genetic testing were raised by fathers oblivious to the fact they were not the real genetic father of the kid

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  4. Re:No way in hell by Nit+Picker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I agree with your basic statement, but I read the article in a different way: "You can ban the labs, but this knowledge wants to be free. Amateurs can step into the vacuum if the pros are kept out."

    Just as the early PC's were toys that developed into powerful tools, there is a potential for the interested public to start with haphazard work and, if denied a legitimate source of the information, develop into something usable.