Here is an example of the sort of press reaction I'm referring to (this isn't a particularly egregious example, but it demonstrates the point): https://www.was

Here is an example of the sort of press reaction I'm referring to (this isn't a particularly egregious example, but it demonstrates the point): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/08/01/large-dna-study-using-23andme-data-finds-15-sites-linked-to-depression/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/0... Look at the language there. Scientists "pinpointed 15 locations in our DNA that are associated with depression..." [emphases added]. There is no sense of nuance or any caution in conclusion here. Even reading the whole article, which perhaps most people won't even bother with, you don't get much sense that there's any degree of uncertainty here. There is no indication that the field at large is still wrestling with how best to analyze SNP studies at all, despite publishing studies "practically ever week". There is little qualification around the data set here (it only briefly mentions that 23andme's data is based on saliva, not blood or other cells... which may be problematic. But also it should be noted that disease outcomes in this study were self-reported and from a self-selected subset of the general population who sought professional help... and there are many, many other nuances to consider). Instead, we get the fairly flat-out impression that this is a definitive discovery and, not only that, but it is of huge significance in the field as well. It may well be. But caution is warranted until time and replication hopefully do their work. Unfortunately, this is a pattern in GWAS studies and their public relations. And while the underlying methodology in the field has improved tremendously over the past 5 years, there is still a lot of debate within the field about how much more improvement needs to be made (on data sources, on analytic techniques, on review standards), and how to adapt to forthcoming changes in available study data. I think this study appears to be more robust than many others. So, I'm not picking on it. In fact I gave it particular praise for being relatively robust compared to some other GWASs. But I do think generally people should be more cautious about interpreting GWA studies or over-generalizing them.