SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/health/fda-genetic-tests-23andme.html
For the first time, the Food and Drug Administration said it would allow a company to sell genetic tests for disease risk directly to consumers, providing people with information about the likelihood that they could develop various conditions, including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.
The move on Thursday is a turnaround for the agency, which had imposed a moratorium in 2013 on disease tests sold by the company, 23andMe, which is based in Mountain View, Calif. The decision is expected to open the floodgates for more direct-to-consumer tests for disease risks, drawing a road map for other companies to do the same thing.
If you could take such a test, would you? Or would you rather just take things as they come?
(Score: 4, Informative) by quixote on Sunday April 09 2017, @03:55PM (1 child)
At the end of the post: "If you could take such a test, would you? Or would you rather just take things as they come?" That assumes the tests gives us usable information.
As a college bio prof using molecular tools in my research, I want to shout about the big technical problem with this.
The diseases of interest to people are multifactorial. Science has barely identified a few of the factors for most conditions. So we really don't know which genetic patterns to look for with a high degree of confidence.
Plus -- huge additional issue -- all these genetic patterns are statistically associated with given conditions. So, if the total population has a 1% risk of developing purple hair after age 40, and your genetic data indicates a 10% risk, yes, your risk is higher but it's still very far from a sure thing. And since many factors are involved, eating kale to reduce your risk may or may not actually alter it.
tl:dr; Science doesn't know enough for these tests to be useful to people without way more training in medicine, biology, and statistics than most people (or insurance agencies) have.
The other issues commenters have mentioned, privacy, insurance problems, are even bigger.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @04:27PM
if the total population has a 1% risk of developing purple hair after age 40, and your genetic data indicates a 10% risk, yes, your risk is higher but it's still very far from a sure thing.
Nothing is certain in life, taxes and death notwithstanding. Still, knowing you have a higher chance of X can be useful. You can for instance avoid things that increase the chance of X.
To some degree this is already done. Some families have high incidence of heart disease for instance. It isn't a sure thing, but ignoring the numbers because it isn't a 100% certain thing is foolish.