4 ms·
> only 11 percent. this tells us that the remainder is more likely to be attributable to environmental factors. No, it doesn't. It merely tells us that with th
by gwern 8y ago
> only 11 percent. this tells us that the remainder is more likely to be attributable to environmental factors.
No, it doesn't. It merely tells us that with the data up to now, we've reached 11% (up from, incidentally, ~0.3% just 5 years ago). It provides a very loose lower bound on genes. Saying that is like saying, 'our software testing up to now has only revealed bugs in 11 places, therefore, every other line of code must be bug-free!' Even if you knew nothing about the actual heritability estimates, one would think that finding so much so quickly would make one suspect that there's a lot more to find...
- the8472 8y agoPlus they focus on SNPs, not other types of gene variants.
- cryoshon 8y agothere's always more to find, but consider that this model is leaving out the environment entirely and its predictive value is even less than you might think at first glance. we know the environment impacts gene transcription, and we know that genetic determinism (as far as outcome phenotypes) is not a thing. likewise, there may be epigenetic factors at play which wouldn't be captured in a GWAS yet still might (or might not) have an impact on outcomes. it isn't a "the other lines of code are bug free" situation so much as a "we expect there to be an abundance of bugs with undefined consequences outside of the subset which we have examined which most likely outweigh the stuff we found"