3 ms·
A similar set of assertions by her fellow traveler Latham was debunked by the scientific community a few months ago: http://www.genomesunzipped.org/2011/04/the
by temphn 15y ago
A similar set of assertions by her fellow traveler Latham was debunked by the scientific community a few months ago:
http://www.genomesunzipped.org/2011/04/the-genome-hasnt-failed.php http://www.genomesunzipped.org/2011/04/the-genome-hasnt-fail...
It should be noted that every paper 23andMe has curated to provide their risk calculations was originally published in a peer reviewed journal, often Science or Nature. It should also be emphasized that new methods (like the recent Visscher et al. manuscript) are starting to give considerable signal for predicting complex traits from genome sequence.
Take Genewatch with a grain of salt, they are activists rather than scientists and are infamous for trashing anything associated with genetics and genomics (whether GMO crops or complex trait research).
- tokenadult 15y agoI've shared the link you've kindly shared with the scientist who posted the link I posted here to an email list including participants in a behavioral genetics seminar. http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall10/psy8935/syllabus_spring_11.pdf http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall10/psy8935/syllabus_spr... I suppose that part of what goes on in discussions like this is sorting out which findings are "significant" not just in the statistical sense but also in actual clinical practice. I see Eric Turkheimer's faculty webpage http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ent3c http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ent3c is temporarily unavailable. (I have just emailed him about that.) That is usually a good source of links to current literature on behavioral genetics, the subject that prompts my interest in genetics literature.
- temphn 15y agoThanks, tokenadult. We surely disagree about many things but you are indeed a seeker of truth.