[coherentpony]

> 23andme has created an affordable market for personal genomics

Fair.

> single-handedly forced modernization in regulation and policy

Personal DNA kits were not pioneered by 23andme. The NHS in the UK sends out personal kits to test for colon cancer. One rather smart child, Jack Andraka [1], devised a personal kit to test for pancreatic cancer. And regulation in FDA policy is constantly shifting and changing. A notable such shift is due to a club set up by Ron Woodroof in 1988 [2].

23andme may have helped push science further, but single-handedly? Hardly. Science and discovery is a collaborative effort. They couldn't have done it without shoulders to stand on.

> built a mineable database of human genome data that is helping researchers find cures

The Human Genome project is a mineable database of chemical base pairs the make up human DNA. This has been an enabling technology used by researchers for drug and disease discovery since 1987 [3].

> and amassed nearly 1M paying customers.

The article you link to claims the number is closer to 850,000. A claim of 1M implies a relative error of 17.6%.

> I'd love for you to say that just because they aren't profitable means that they are a failure.

I agree that non-profitability does not imply failure.

May I ask what your affiliation with 23andme is?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Andraka#Research_and_exper...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Woodroof

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project#History

[dluan]

One of the biggest challenges they've had to and continue to try to overcome is an outdated policy system around personal health data, within the U.S., and I'm not sure if Jack Andraka has attempted to mass produce and mass release his pancreatic kit. The statement was about their recent FDA battles, not about 'advancing science'.

The 23andme dataset provides more value than HGP since it's an dataset of active participants. I don't know too much about the specifics or privacy mechanics, so I can't comment on how, but this article is an example (http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_27487046/23andme-quest...). The way researchers are using the dataset is very different because they are able to do followups. That's a very significant difference, it's why they have pharma companies lining up to get access to the dataset.

Last I heard, they were closer to 1M than 850k, unfortunately can't find any live stats. Maybe someone else can chime in?

I don't have any affiliation, and I'm surprised that you'd assume so. I recognize that there's an overeagerness from both startup people and academics to crap on biotech startups, rightly or wrongly. I haven't quite figured out why spectators are motivated to do so.

[jghn]

One big negative is that they're only running a snp pnel for most cases and just now starting to toe the water of exomes

[chmille4]

I figured I could add a little clarification to this comment.

* The human genome project created a "single" genome (thats not quite right, but close enough for this discussion). This was and is incredibly useful, but a single genome can only do so much. To answer population genomics questions (e.g. is this mutation common and therefore probably not disease causative) you need lots of people and the more the better.

* The 23andme dataset is not whole genome data, but instead some subset of genomic locations that they consider more interesting. Still valuable but not as much as whole genome data.

Also, for big whole genome datasets you can check out the 1000 Genomes Project, which has somewhere north of 2000 genomes. And there are many more big datasets in the works, which will continue to be incredibly useful!

[dluan]

Good clarification, amended my comment too. Although, the 23andme dataset is with live participants with genealogy data. That's a dimension HGP doesn't offer.

1000 Genomes looks great, but how is it funded? Also, how is the sequencing done? Presents a few more open variables, and 23andme is orders of magnitude larger.

[chmille4]

Absolutely, I meant to add above that the 23andme dataset has huge value due to its size. Also you bring up a good point about potential easy access to participants. If 23andme allows researchers to contact people who were of interest to their particular study and ask for more information, which could be as easy a questionnaire, that could be incredibly valuable. I don't agree with the above commenter that 23andme was a failure. Genomics is still incredibly young and we are just getting to the point where we can have an impact on the average persons life.

As for the 1000 genomes project, it was funded with government money (I think mostly the NIH, although the UK may have been involved too) therefore the data is free and open. The data was generated using illumina sequencers.

[jghn]

Worth noting that the sequencing was done at multiple centers, eg the broad institute