Slashdot Mirror
Renowned Geneticist Analyzes Consumer DNA Tests
pdragon04 sends in the hardly surprising news that direct-to-consumer genetic testing isn't predicting diseases as well as they claim. "...[Francis] Collins, who played a central role in the Human Genome Project and is rumored to be the next head of the National Institutes of Health, announced at the Consumer Genetics Conference in Boston last week that he had had his genome analyzed [using a made-up name] by the big three of direct-to-consumer genetic testing: 23andMe, Navigenics, and DecodeMe. Collins said that sequence-wise, the tests 'appear to be highly accurate': there were almost no differences in the genotype information generated in the three different analyses. But there were significant differences in the numbers of genetic variations used to calculate disease risk, as well as the final risk score. ... For example, one company used 5 single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs, to calculate risk for a particular disease, pronouncing Collins at low risk. Another used 10 SNPs, placing him at high risk, and the third used 15, concluding that he is at average risk."
First, of all that's not accurate. Collins is pretty strongly against creationism in most of its forms, including classical young earth creationism and intelligent design. He is a variant of a theistic evolutionist with perhaps more of a notion of direct intervention by God than most theistic evolutionists. So describing him as you did is inaccurate.
Even if Collins views were not more moderate than you portray them, it wouldn't make his expertise any less. To use another example, I think that Noam Chomsky has a very strange ideas in his head about politics and how the media work. That doesn't mean I'm going to pay less attention to him when he talks about linguistics. Someone can have bad ideas in one area and still be an expert in another. Given his background, Collins clearly knows what he is talking about and is qualified to evaluate the products in question.
>>Francis Collins also believes that Jesus rode dinosaurs.
I've actually read his book, and he actually is pro-evolution, and thinks Christians shouldn't tie their belief in God to belief in evolution.
So, in other words, you're completely fucking wrong, you idiot retard.
God bless.
Sounds like there's room in the market for just the risk analysis. No reason to have the dirty work done three times - just sequence once and get a whole range of opinions, or focus on certain areas for detailed analysis. maybe this already exists.
Genotype doesn't completely determine phenotype but it does provide some input. Genotype with environmental effects and stochastic elements determines phenotype (broadly speaking, I'm oversimplifying slightly since how one classifies epigenetic factors is complicated). Moreover, genotype is a major factor. So if I know information about the genotype I can prepare a lot. If for example I have an allele that is connected to increase risk of colon cancer, I know to have colonoscopies more often. If I'm a female with a bad BRCA1 allele I know that I should have my breasts checked much more regularly. Etc. Your comment is sort of like saying "why should I learn about my family medical history if knowing about it can make my insurance premium go up?"
And if they drop a couple of Gs in the sequencing, god only knows what kind of results you'll get back
Francis Collins also believes that Jesus rode dinosaurs. He was once a respected scientist, but then he took a short step off a long intellectual pier. Why should I give his advice any consideration?
Because you don't want to commit an ad hominim fallacy?
They might also give results at the drop of an 'AT.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
And if you get it on the cheap, they might even give you results at the drop of a C.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
In the United States, discrimination on the basis of genetic information or the requesting, requiring, or purchasing of genetic information by any health care plan is prohibited by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, passed by Congress in April 2008 and signed by President Bush the following month. Similarly, employers may not discriminate on the basis of genetic data, nor may they generally request nor require an employee to undergo genetic testing (there are a few very limited exceptions).
Basically, you can learn about your genome without worry that your insurance premiums will change, because with very limited exceptions, the insurers will never have access to it.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Because you don't want to commit an ad hominim fallacy?
I'll see your "ad hominem [sic] fallacy" and raise you a "credibility of the witness."
In the ideal world of the philosophers, where all parties are equally able to evaluate all the arguments raised, attacks on character are indeed fallacious. 2+2=4, and it doesn't matter if the person telling you that is someone you like, someone you despise, or someone you don't know from Adam. But in the real world, nobody knows everything. Most of the time, most people who are debating any subject don't know nearly enough about it to decide if what they're being told is true. So we fall back on acknowledged experts, because we have to; none of us have time to become experts on every subject that might possibly be of interest. Our evaluation of how credible a particular expert seems to be is how we decide which statements we will accept as fact.
The vast majority of people considering personal genetic testing aren't going to know enough about the science involved to be able to decide, on a purely logical basis, whether they're getting their money's worth. Many of these people will think, quite reasonably, that a prominent geneticist will have more insight than they themselves will. But if the geneticist does things which call his scientific judgement into question, then this information whould be included in evaluating the worth of his statements on the subject.
Whether or not this principle applies to the debate at hand is left as an exercise to the reader.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I'll see your "ad hominem [sic] fallacy" and raise you a "credibility of the witness."
If you don't know what "sic" means, don't use it.
Also, the expert's beliefs in some other field do not affect his skill in his specialty. A fantastic chef might have appalling taste in wine, but that won't stop me from eating at his restaurant, because all I care about is the skill in question.
Religion isn't bad. Extremists are bad. Zealots are bad. Idiots are bad. Religion may bring about these things, or those with these may be attracted to religion, however that isn't the fault of the religion itself. If a country began to kill and oppress in the name of democracy would you say democracy was bad? If a man began to kidnap and rape people in the name of love would love be bad?
Two points:
1) Zealots have little power in the absence of a moderate base. The difference in influence between a Pat Robertson and a Jim Jones is quantitative, not qualitative.
2) Democracy and love are rather abstract concepts compared to the notion of a specific God who wants me to hate and persecute specific classes of people. That's the problem with the faith of someone like Francis Collins... his apologetics are all hand-wavy and woo-woo-driven, but the actual God he's evangelizing for has specific traits, specific likes and dislikes... and specific plans for humanity that simply are not compatible with the rational worldview we (should) demand of our scientists.
Your comment is sort of like saying "why should I learn about my family medical history if knowing about it can make my insurance premium go up?"
I don't think his comment was "sort of" anything. I think that was exactly what he was asking and I don't think you gave an adequate answer.
So let's see... you find out from your DNA screening not that you actually have any condition, but that you need more tests, more careful screening, regular check-ups, etc, because you're at high risk. Unfortunately, your insurance carrier catches wind of your DNA results and jacks up your premiums so now you can't afford health insurance, and ergo you can't afford to pay for any of these regular tests you've been told you need. And this is a stain on your health record that will last the rest of your life. Nice going.
Breakfast served all day!
Um... I'm not a hard core believer in Jesus as my savior and all that, but I'm pretty sure his main contention was that we should be good to one another.
Misinterpretation for personal benefit has really messed up organized religion.
Money is the root of all evil?
You changed the spelling, and keeping the original spelling is the central point of using sic, so that the reader knows the error was in the original and not introduced by the quoter.
HAIL SATAN.
You've GATA me there. I'm out of puns.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I know its tempting to think of hypotheticals such as your cancer sufferer. Unfortunately in the current climate, it isn't a choice between "hmm, I know I'm prone to x disease let me take y preventative action" and "let me blow off knowing anything about my genetics." If I look at it from the position of your example, testing won't do any good whatsoever. He already has the condition. I might wish to have the option to swap money for having this information in the past. Fantasies are nice, sometimes very nice, but they are by definition not reality.
The gp is being pragmatic, not idealistic. The question you must ask, given the current climate and behavior of the healthcare industry, would I want to know about my dna if that information is also likely to land in the hands of others. It is somewhat similar to playing the lottery, hitting the roulette tables, or dropping some coins into a slot machine. Gambling. Yes, you can learn something about yourself. But you do so at the risk of letting other people learn the same information. The healthcare industry can take two routes, basically, to pay for the cases that come up. A) Healthy people overpay to cover the costs of the sick people or B) the company can charge you more when you're healthy to cover the costs of when you're sick. In the absence of information as to the at-risk, A is the only viable option. Start digging up such information and B suddenly becomes possible.
Yes, I know those cases aren't spot on. But I'm not writing a detailed analysis of any particular industry here.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
The practice of using different numbers of gene sequences is common: the same thing happens if you get an HIV test, or an HPV test, or FLU, or whatever. In that case though, the FDA regulates it to prove that the result is clinically valid. I'm not sure what involvement the FDA has in this.
One item in the article that surprised me: the companies aren't offering information to their clients about diseases they are carriers for. For instance, it would add value to their service if clients knew they carried the gene for cystic fibrosis (a common genetic test).
It's either a huge oversight by the 'big three', or they think that their clients are so focused on themselves as to not really care about what diseases their children could inherit.
Maybe Jesus was all happy hugs and kisses, but his dad, the guy that the Jesus worshipers believe is the real power, and the one with the ultimate say in all things, demands his followers be prepared to wage war, kill those that are different, rape, pillage, plunder, and murder their own children as human sacrifices.
Claims of Jesus's endorsement of piece and love doesn't give much comfort when he is only the SON of God. It's not like there would be any chance of him gaining the throne. It's documented how usurpers are handled after all.