| >...could be used for medical treatment by motivating earlier intervention... and >...could include stronger recommendations for better diet and exercise, closer monitoring programs, or more precise prescriptions... and >...could reduce disease burden... This is where the problem delineates for me: We're being massively assumptive in moving from "could" to "is" and "will". I will, generally, concede the could portion but to assert that it is emphatically happening or going to happen is still far from fruition and to label this science as such, just yet, is overreaching and giving false hope where none should really be given because, then, you'll taint it's benefits with the drawbacks. Remember: Anonymised data (e.g.: 23andme) only allows a survey of what's relatively known or can be inferred from the anonymised dataset. To arrive at what you're suggesting, it would have to move into a different realm (I believe), like UK BioBank or GEDMatch but, even then, we're still basing things on speculative science - gambles of percentages that aren't, emphatically, true or false but a kind of "maybe, kind of, sort of, in a way, definitely could or defintely could not" muddied waters. That, to me, is a far stretch from saying that the data in 23andme is - actually - helping medicine; which I believe is what the OC I replied to emphatically said. |