|
|
|
|
|
|
by jonlucc
4571 days ago
|
|
|
Are the BRCA genetics well enough understood that a deep sequence of that gene is able to be adequately interpreted? Ultimately, what you seem to be suggesting is that it is better that we not get partial data because most people won't understand that it's partial data and further won't know what to do with it. Most people are not geneticists. I sort of agree, but there is no doubt in my mind that the future will see the loosening of the physician-as-gatekeeper, and to what extent is that acceptable. Would this service be allowed if they taught cursory genetics and SNPs in the general biology curricula at the high school level? |
|
|
It's not my field, but I know they're well enough understood that you can get far more information from the full sequence than from a few SNPs. Even 23andme has always said the same thing on their website if you look closely.
Ultimately, what you seem to be suggesting is that it is better that we not get partial data because most people won't understand that it's partial data and further won't know what to do with it.
I wouldn't quite say that. I think partial data is perfectly fine. I'm a 23andme customer, despite understanding that it's close to meaningless from a medical perspective (I think the most valuable medical information I got was related to male pattern baldness; coolest information is the Neanderthal stuff). The problem IMHO was 23andme's marketing, which to me seemed almost as if it was designed to mislead people.
Another example... over thanksgiving I was talking to my cousin. She brought up the 23andme news because she had recently done it, but hadn't received results yet. I asked her why she got the test. First answer? BRCA. She had no idea that the 23andme test was not nearly comprehensive. And she's not just some average person not smart enough to understand things - she has a PhD from MIT (albeit not in biology, although her husband has a biology PhD), knows a lot about breast cancer since her mom had it, and is generally very cynical about stuff like this.
Would this service be allowed if they taught cursory genetics and SNPs in the general biology curricula at the high school level?
I think high school curricula are irrelevant to the discussion, for multiple reasons. The vast majority of high school students don't have the background to understand this stuff. Even if they did, most wouldn't care enough to remember it. And even if they did care, the science is changing rapidly - it won't be too long before we're doing whole genomes and many other things.