|
|
|
|
|
|
by myleskeating
4300 days ago
|
|
|
As other people have said, genetic information is powerful and scary to most folks. Most diseases have a host of genetic factors that also interplay with environmental factors, and the outcomes of these interactions are not rigorously understood. So 23andMe is a cool idea but may be overstepping the data. Plus most people are not able to interpret what these genetic risks mean for them, so delivering the results directly (not through a doctor or preferably genetic counselor) is risky. People tend to think of genes as laws or rules, as guarantees, when really our genomes are complex if-then clauses (if this chemical hits this receptor transcribe that bit there). What if someone decides to get a double masectomy because of BRCA mutations? That's a traumatic, expensive procedure, and maybe riskier than the cancer risk; in any case, it's a decision that should be made with a medical professional. Finally, 23andMe inexplicably flipped a big old bird to the FDA, their own regulatory agency, by NOT RESPONDING TO THE FDA FOR 6 MONTHS before the warning letter. That's just irresponsible and foolish. Biotech has a crazy amount of regulation, but I think 23andMe deserved this one Read more here: http://venturebeat.com/2013/12/03/why-the-fdas-anvil-dropped... Hank (the interviewee) is a really great writer and teacher if you want to learn more about bioethical issues |
|
|