3 ms·

Sure, it's early. I know it and knew it when I signed up. I was not shocked to find out that the markers they'd identified as being associated with schizophreni

Sure, it's early. I know it and knew it when I signed up. I was not shocked to find out that the markers they'd identified as being associated with schizophrenia aren't a complete picture or a way to detect schizophrenia. And, I also know that genes aren't the only thing that determines whether one will suffer from schizophrenia or pancreatic cancer or most other diseases (as far as we know). I think they always presented the information without being misleading (though the government disagreed). But, I also know that genetic markers for some diseases are a real thing and they are useful predictors of disease in some cases. And, the number of markers that have predictive applications are increasing all the time, as research gets done. I don't expect 23andme to replace a doctor or a psychologist. But, I took a little bit of comfort in seeing that the markers that are thought to be predictive (even if mildly so) aren't present in my genes. I don't think they ever presented them as being a way to diagnose any condition. It was always just a fun thing you can do with your own genetic data, and maybe help move research in the field forward by answering questionnaires now and then. I enjoyed playing with 23andme when it was focused on health-related data, less so now that it's focused on ancestry. I haven't logged in for well over a year. I mean, I was amused to debunk my family's native American myth (which I think many American families have, for some reason), and I was also able to rule out my theory that the broad noses and dark skin that run in my family came from black folks somewhere in the family tree (that surprised me, I actually expected we had some African lineage, despite no one ever mentioning it...I assumed that's why some old folks in the family claimed native ancestry, to explain away those features). So, I guess the ancestry thing is reasonably amusing, too, but I probably wouldn't have signed up just for that, since I've always known I'm an American mutt of poor white trash lineage.

timr 9y ago
"I was not shocked to find out that the markers they'd identified as being associated with schizophrenia aren't a complete picture or a way to detect schizophrenia. And, I also know that genes aren't the only thing that determines whether one will suffer from schizophrenia or pancreatic cancer or most other diseases (as far as we know). I think they always presented the information without being misleading (though the government disagreed)." They were completely misleading (at least, the reports I saw were misleading). Most of the stuff they reported was taken wildly out of context -- if it weren't, a lay audience couldn't possibly understand it! But even ignoring the fact that you don't know the field (and therefore cannot possibly evaluate their claims, aside from general skepticism), a big part of the reason that you shouldn't be doing your own genetic analysis is that a lot of science is crap. Even "good" science is crap. So it's not that the markers "aren't a complete picture" -- it's that they're probably just noise, and you can't possibly know, unless the test passes all of the hurdles to get certified. You need the system, because the system is the only thing that validates results over time. Strength through redundancy. Also, for whatever it's worth: be very careful with correlating anything to their ancestry calculations. Those are pretty much crap, too.

timr 9y ago

"I was not shocked to find out that the markers they'd identified as being associated with schizophrenia aren't a complete picture or a way to detect schizophrenia. And, I also know that genes aren't the only thing that determines whether one will suffer from schizophrenia or pancreatic cancer or most other diseases (as far as we know). I think they always presented the information without being misleading (though the government disagreed)." They were completely misleading (at least, the reports I saw were misleading). Most of the stuff they reported was taken wildly out of context -- if it weren't, a lay audience couldn't possibly understand it! But even ignoring the fact that you don't know the field (and therefore cannot possibly evaluate their claims, aside from general skepticism), a big part of the reason that you shouldn't be doing your own genetic analysis is that a lot of science is crap. Even "good" science is crap. So it's not that the markers "aren't a complete picture" -- it's that they're probably just noise, and you can't possibly know, unless the test passes all of the hurdles to get certified. You need the system, because the system is the only thing that validates results over time. Strength through redundancy. Also, for whatever it's worth: be very careful with correlating anything to their ancestry calculations. Those are pretty much crap, too.