[yummyfajitas]

So does that mean personal genomic companies are far ahead of institutes in their research?

Does it matter? Maybe they will contribute something useful, maybe they won't.

If we shut them down now, they definitely won't.

Second, I think we need regulation here for the same reasons that we need net neutrality.

To prevent service providers with a government granted monopoly from extorting payments from the rest of the economy?

Is this a serious danger in the personal genomics market? I was under the impression that the FDA wanted to prevent consumers from purchasing genetic tests without receiving permission from another government granted monopoly (doctors).

[prat]

Does it matter? Maybe they will contribute something useful, maybe they won't.

If we shut them down now, they definitely won't.

Exactly - that's why I say don't shut them down, regulate them.

To prevent service providers with a government granted monopoly from extorting payments from the rest of the economy?

Is this a serious danger in the personal genomics market? I was under the impression that the FDA wanted to prevent consumers from purchasing genetic tests without receiving permission from another government granted monopoly (doctors).

There is no govt.granted monopoly here. All they want is to be sure that a medical advice is givem by 1) qualifieed entity 2) if 1) is not possible then atleast based on research done by a qualified entity (i.e. published results)

[yummyfajitas]

There is no govt.granted monopoly here.

The AMA is a government granted monopoly.

Regardless, could you further explain your analogy to net neutrality? I can't even imagine what combination of misconceptions about net neutrality and personal genomics led you to make such a comparison.

All they want is to be sure that a medical advice...

Personal genomics companies do not give out medical advice. They give out genetic information.

The proposed regulations would require you to get the permission of a doctor (or other clinician) before you can have your DNA sequenced, and the data would be available only through the doctor.

[prat]

I can't even imagine what combination of misconceptions about net neutrality and personal genomics led you to make such a comparison.

Strong words - try just asking and I'll answer :). Here is where the comparison comes from.. The same way that net neutrality aims to prevent carriers from promoting one hosts content over another, this decision aims to potentially prevent advising on drug response from one pharma company vs. another. Not that this is already happening, but policies should be as forward looking as possible.

The proposed regulations would require you to get the permission of a doctor (or other clinician) before you can have your DNA sequenced, and the data would be available only through the doctor.

Did you read my original parent post ? if not read it now - the last paragraph. I am not in favor of the govt having a doctor grant permission, but for FDA to make a universally trusted mutation screen through which all DTC companies operate. FDA makes not money, no monopoly and DTC companies have a way to get new findings added to the mutation screen through proper channels (published papers)