5 ms·

Is it me or are there suddenly a lot of anti-DNA testing articles being published lately? Is there a particular lobby that I'm not aware of?

ChrisSD 8y ago
It's the hype backlash. There were a lot of over the top pro DNA testing articles in years past so now the hype cycle has moved on to the next stage.
- jcutrell 8y ago
  This is interesting. Is there actual research on “hype cycles?” I want to read it if so.
  - ChrisSD 8y ago
    Not that I'm aware of. It's more a comment on how at some point the press overhypes some tech which then leads to an inevitable correction. Hopefully it's true value is appreciated afterwards but that's not a given.
  - jobigoud 8y ago
    I just checked and indeed there is research. The most popular model that we all know is called the Gartner Hype Cycle. https://www.gartner.com/en/research/methodologies/gartner-hype-cycle https://www.gartner.com/en/research/methodologies/gartner-hy... Arxiv has a few articles on hype cycles for example: "A simple interpretation of the growth of scientific/technological research impact leading to hype-type evolution curves", Campani, 2014. https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8685 https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8685 "Hype Cycle Dynamics: Microscopic Modeling and Detection", Hashemi, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08939 https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08939 You can also type "gartner hype cycle" in Scholar or sci-hub and there are many hits.
avip 8y ago
Submarine in action. “by editorial board” being your red flag. Journalism is in a financial crisis so we see more and more paid content.
- citiguy 8y ago
  By that you mean the original articles promoting 23 and Me were paid advertising and this is the nytimes' attempt to be less biased?
  - avip 8y ago
    No. Obviously both are paid advertising.
primordialsoup 8y ago
One company screws up, people start to look more carefully at others. But I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of such a lobby that you speak of, which is funded by.. umm.. crime industry?
- myself248 8y ago
  Or you know, privacy or something? If a family member signs over their genes, and they share a lot of genetic material with me, my privacy is compromised. I like to think I should have some form of agency over the intrinsic things that make me who I am, but this industry couldn't care less about that. That squicks me out. Would you send me a scan of your fingerprints? Or do your crime industry connections suggest that you shouldn't do that?
  - primordialsoup 8y ago
    You are right. I was trying to think who might have deep pockets to fund lobbying against genetic testing, that's all. Privacy is definitely a valid concern that I forgot about!
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      >I was trying to think who might have deep pockets to fund lobbying against genetic testing, that's all. I think in this case the deep pockets would mainly be on the side of selling more genetic testing, as opposed to selling less. After all the pocket holders themselves aren't being tested.
  - sorokod 8y ago
    "my privacy is compromised" As well as the privacy of your ( possibly still unborn ) children.
  - wolco 8y ago
    What about your face? It's used more often.
jrochkind1 8y ago
Maybe just because most of these DNA services are based on bad science, and eventually people were bound pay attention to this?
cassowary37 8y ago
not sure why this is downvoted, it's a fair question. Conspiracy theories are fun but I think the apparent trend reflects two complementary forces: 1. More media attention to genetic testing in general (because of 23andme, other companies entering the market) 2. A great deal of concern from the medical genetics community that these tests, or at least some of them, are way ahead of the science. Geneticists who are drawn to the field out of a desire to impact health take exception to seeing their work used to take advantage of vulnerable groups. (This can go to the extreme: some geneticists would prefer that the science remain 'pure' and will probably never think it's ready for prime time.) Disclosure: lapsed geneticist
Angostura 8y ago
Because become very popular and are being hyped, and so the press has decided to shone some light on them?
analog31 8y ago
I think people are beginning to think of the "tech industry" as a whole, as being a two edged sword. The honeymoon is over.
- philwelch 8y ago
  Not just "people", but "journalists" who see their own field collapsing and attribute a combination of blame and envy to tech.
  - zozbot123 8y ago
    > attribute a combination of blame and envy to tech. Well, it doesn't help when techbros from 4chan and other 'techie'-linked spaces routinely troll these same journalists by suggesting that they should "learn to code", or something. I'm not saying that their envy is justified, but it seems that there's more than one side at fault here!
    - chadcmulligan 8y ago
      who pays any attention to what someone on 4chan says?
    - Amezarak 8y ago
      It isn’t ‘techbro’ trolls that are engaging in the learn to code trolling, it’s people who believe that the news media gleefully printed hundreds of articles about how blue collar workers needed to quit complaining about the new global economy and learn to code, and that they are being hypocritical now that the (supposedly) same forces are impacting their industry. I’m not endorsing the campaign which is hurtful at a time when someone has just lost their job, but to interpret it as techbros holding coding up as the way of the future is a mistake. Most of these people are also skeptical of coding as a lasting career.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    Or maybe, just maybe, a lot of the things going on in the tech industry could have ramifications due to severe privacy violations along with a large amount of startups/companies selling bullshit to consumers.
raz32dust 8y ago
I don't think it is some lobby. All these concerns are legitimate. Besides, people are scrutinizing tech companies more anyway. I have always felt uneasy when friends happily send their DNA to some company just to get some stats of doubtful accuracy without realizing how their data can be used. So I am happy about the increasing awareness and scrutiny. I hope these companies get regulated better. Just like with GDPR, I should have control of exactly what data from my DNA they can use, and how they can use it.
oska 8y ago
I see it the other way. I've noticed a very marked increase in promotion of these tests over the last year or so (including people on YouTube being sponsored to take them). I think we're now seeing some of the backlash to that promotional onslaught.
Mountain_Skies 8y ago
Adulterers would have a reason to be opposed to such testing but I doubt they have a lobby.
skwb 8y ago
I think you're right but for different reasons. Over the past few years, we've seen the toxicity that can come from the management of healthcare companies like they are the same as software companies. The easy example here is Theranos, which was engaged in fragrant fraud until it was uncovered by the WSJ. The company focused its time and resources on the design and aesthetic, but was from a scientific perspective, 100% BS. That says to me that if you don't take an aggressive regulatory supervision of the healthcare market, (literal) snake oil salesmen will come in and promise the world. It's one thing to let juicero fail because there's no critical health concern that happens when the product ultimately fails. When it's a device or service that impacts patient care, we have a moral obligation to ensure we are doing best to ensure we are positively impacting care.

ChrisSD 8y ago

It's the hype backlash. There were a lot of over the top pro DNA testing articles in years past so now the hype cycle has moved on to the next stage.

jcutrell 8y ago
This is interesting. Is there actual research on “hype cycles?” I want to read it if so.
- ChrisSD 8y ago
  Not that I'm aware of. It's more a comment on how at some point the press overhypes some tech which then leads to an inevitable correction. Hopefully it's true value is appreciated afterwards but that's not a given.
- jobigoud 8y ago
  I just checked and indeed there is research. The most popular model that we all know is called the Gartner Hype Cycle. https://www.gartner.com/en/research/methodologies/gartner-hype-cycle https://www.gartner.com/en/research/methodologies/gartner-hy... Arxiv has a few articles on hype cycles for example: "A simple interpretation of the growth of scientific/technological research impact leading to hype-type evolution curves", Campani, 2014. https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8685 https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8685 "Hype Cycle Dynamics: Microscopic Modeling and Detection", Hashemi, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08939 https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08939 You can also type "gartner hype cycle" in Scholar or sci-hub and there are many hits.

avip 8y ago

Submarine in action. “by editorial board” being your red flag. Journalism is in a financial crisis so we see more and more paid content.

citiguy 8y ago
By that you mean the original articles promoting 23 and Me were paid advertising and this is the nytimes' attempt to be less biased?
- avip 8y ago
  No. Obviously both are paid advertising.

primordialsoup 8y ago

One company screws up, people start to look more carefully at others. But I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of such a lobby that you speak of, which is funded by.. umm.. crime industry?

myself248 8y ago
Or you know, privacy or something? If a family member signs over their genes, and they share a lot of genetic material with me, my privacy is compromised. I like to think I should have some form of agency over the intrinsic things that make me who I am, but this industry couldn't care less about that. That squicks me out. Would you send me a scan of your fingerprints? Or do your crime industry connections suggest that you shouldn't do that?
- primordialsoup 8y ago
  You are right. I was trying to think who might have deep pockets to fund lobbying against genetic testing, that's all. Privacy is definitely a valid concern that I forgot about!
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    >I was trying to think who might have deep pockets to fund lobbying against genetic testing, that's all. I think in this case the deep pockets would mainly be on the side of selling more genetic testing, as opposed to selling less. After all the pocket holders themselves aren't being tested.
- sorokod 8y ago
  "my privacy is compromised" As well as the privacy of your ( possibly still unborn ) children.
- wolco 8y ago
  What about your face? It's used more often.

jrochkind1 8y ago

Maybe just because most of these DNA services are based on bad science, and eventually people were bound pay attention to this?

cassowary37 8y ago

not sure why this is downvoted, it's a fair question. Conspiracy theories are fun but I think the apparent trend reflects two complementary forces: 1. More media attention to genetic testing in general (because of 23andme, other companies entering the market) 2. A great deal of concern from the medical genetics community that these tests, or at least some of them, are way ahead of the science. Geneticists who are drawn to the field out of a desire to impact health take exception to seeing their work used to take advantage of vulnerable groups. (This can go to the extreme: some geneticists would prefer that the science remain 'pure' and will probably never think it's ready for prime time.) Disclosure: lapsed geneticist

Angostura 8y ago

Because become very popular and are being hyped, and so the press has decided to shone some light on them?

analog31 8y ago

I think people are beginning to think of the "tech industry" as a whole, as being a two edged sword. The honeymoon is over.

philwelch 8y ago
Not just "people", but "journalists" who see their own field collapsing and attribute a combination of blame and envy to tech.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  > attribute a combination of blame and envy to tech. Well, it doesn't help when techbros from 4chan and other 'techie'-linked spaces routinely troll these same journalists by suggesting that they should "learn to code", or something. I'm not saying that their envy is justified, but it seems that there's more than one side at fault here!
  - chadcmulligan 8y ago
    who pays any attention to what someone on 4chan says?
  - Amezarak 8y ago
    It isn’t ‘techbro’ trolls that are engaging in the learn to code trolling, it’s people who believe that the news media gleefully printed hundreds of articles about how blue collar workers needed to quit complaining about the new global economy and learn to code, and that they are being hypocritical now that the (supposedly) same forces are impacting their industry. I’m not endorsing the campaign which is hurtful at a time when someone has just lost their job, but to interpret it as techbros holding coding up as the way of the future is a mistake. Most of these people are also skeptical of coding as a lasting career.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  Or maybe, just maybe, a lot of the things going on in the tech industry could have ramifications due to severe privacy violations along with a large amount of startups/companies selling bullshit to consumers.

raz32dust 8y ago

I don't think it is some lobby. All these concerns are legitimate. Besides, people are scrutinizing tech companies more anyway. I have always felt uneasy when friends happily send their DNA to some company just to get some stats of doubtful accuracy without realizing how their data can be used. So I am happy about the increasing awareness and scrutiny. I hope these companies get regulated better. Just like with GDPR, I should have control of exactly what data from my DNA they can use, and how they can use it.

oska 8y ago

I see it the other way. I've noticed a very marked increase in promotion of these tests over the last year or so (including people on YouTube being sponsored to take them). I think we're now seeing some of the backlash to that promotional onslaught.

Mountain_Skies 8y ago

Adulterers would have a reason to be opposed to such testing but I doubt they have a lobby.

skwb 8y ago

I think you're right but for different reasons. Over the past few years, we've seen the toxicity that can come from the management of healthcare companies like they are the same as software companies. The easy example here is Theranos, which was engaged in fragrant fraud until it was uncovered by the WSJ. The company focused its time and resources on the design and aesthetic, but was from a scientific perspective, 100% BS. That says to me that if you don't take an aggressive regulatory supervision of the healthcare market, (literal) snake oil salesmen will come in and promise the world. It's one thing to let juicero fail because there's no critical health concern that happens when the product ultimately fails. When it's a device or service that impacts patient care, we have a moral obligation to ensure we are doing best to ensure we are positively impacting care.