4 ms·

$1000 to $399 is a big drop. Any insights on whether medical experts generally regard this test to be worth the money? In theory, I'd like to know whether I'm a

$1000 to $399 is a big drop. Any insights on whether medical experts generally regard this test to be worth the money? In theory, I'd like to know whether I'm at a risk of various diseases so that I can take measures to reduce my risk. The list of diseases seems substantial and has grown since the last time I checked it out: https://www.23andme.com/health/all/ https://www.23andme.com/health/all/ However, I'm not sure how useful this information is in reality. I remember reading an interview with a physician who said that knowing one's family history of various diseases is probably more reliable than this test. Also, I have no way of knowing where my personal genetic information would end up if I used this service.

rms 18y ago
Most of the truly medically actionable genes with high penetrance (a mutation that gives you a 50% chance of developing breast cancer is high penetrance -- a mutation that increases breast cancer risk by 2% is low penetrance) are patented. Navigenics and 23andme only test for low penetrance genes for fishy reasons. Whatever measures you could do to reduce your risk for diseases 23andme says you are at risk of, you should probably be doing anyways. Eat healthy. Exercise more. Get a colonoscopy every year. However, with some hacking, and the raw dump of your 23andme scan (which may be less useful with the new version, I think they are using a microarray 1/10th the size of the old one) you can check yourself for some patented genes. http://www.thinkgene.com/tell-me-everything-how-to-use-snpedia-for-23andme-and-decodeme/ http://www.thinkgene.com/tell-me-everything-how-to-use-snped...
- xiaoma 18y ago
  "Whatever measures you could do to reduce your risk for diseases 23andme says you are at risk of, you should probably be doing anyways. Eat healthy. Exercise more. Get a colonoscopy every year." Uh,,, a colonoscopy? Yikes.
  - rms 18y ago
    Probably not most of us, but I think the recommendation is to start when you're 50, or 40 if you have a family history of colon cancer.
- marvin 18y ago
  I'm afraid of stating the obvious here, but patents on a piece of information like this is really creepy. Especially given that it is a matter of public safety. If treatments become available and genome sequencing becomes really cheap, how are these patents going to be enforced? No one is going to tell you what mutations are scary unless you pay royalties?
  - rms 18y ago
    Yeah, patents in this area are pretty bad. A gene, something that exists in nature, should not be able to be patented. It's ridiculous. Biotech and medical science have been greatly held back by the heavy enforcement of patents in this area -- imagine what would have happened to software if software patents are enforced. And correct, no one is going to tell you scary mutations unless you pay royalties, because the only people that aren't afraid to deal with scary mutations are medical doctors, and they certainly pay the royalties as needed. Probably the single most useful and popular (if you're a woman) of the medically actionable genetic tests is the BRCA1/2 test. Myriad Genetics owns the patent and the test costs several thousand dollars in the US. The patent was overturned in Europe, I believe, so it is probably cheaper there.
    - antiismist 18y ago
      The idea is that a gene in isolation does not exist in nature. You get the patent on the gene isolated from the rest of the DNA. Not saying it is "right"... In other words, you get a patent on using some extract of DNA for a useful purpose like determining cancer susceptibility.

rms 18y ago

Most of the truly medically actionable genes with high penetrance (a mutation that gives you a 50% chance of developing breast cancer is high penetrance -- a mutation that increases breast cancer risk by 2% is low penetrance) are patented. Navigenics and 23andme only test for low penetrance genes for fishy reasons. Whatever measures you could do to reduce your risk for diseases 23andme says you are at risk of, you should probably be doing anyways. Eat healthy. Exercise more. Get a colonoscopy every year. However, with some hacking, and the raw dump of your 23andme scan (which may be less useful with the new version, I think they are using a microarray 1/10th the size of the old one) you can check yourself for some patented genes. http://www.thinkgene.com/tell-me-everything-how-to-use-snpedia-for-23andme-and-decodeme/ http://www.thinkgene.com/tell-me-everything-how-to-use-snped...

xiaoma 18y ago
"Whatever measures you could do to reduce your risk for diseases 23andme says you are at risk of, you should probably be doing anyways. Eat healthy. Exercise more. Get a colonoscopy every year." Uh,,, a colonoscopy? Yikes.
- rms 18y ago
  Probably not most of us, but I think the recommendation is to start when you're 50, or 40 if you have a family history of colon cancer.
marvin 18y ago
I'm afraid of stating the obvious here, but patents on a piece of information like this is really creepy. Especially given that it is a matter of public safety. If treatments become available and genome sequencing becomes really cheap, how are these patents going to be enforced? No one is going to tell you what mutations are scary unless you pay royalties?
- rms 18y ago
  Yeah, patents in this area are pretty bad. A gene, something that exists in nature, should not be able to be patented. It's ridiculous. Biotech and medical science have been greatly held back by the heavy enforcement of patents in this area -- imagine what would have happened to software if software patents are enforced. And correct, no one is going to tell you scary mutations unless you pay royalties, because the only people that aren't afraid to deal with scary mutations are medical doctors, and they certainly pay the royalties as needed. Probably the single most useful and popular (if you're a woman) of the medically actionable genetic tests is the BRCA1/2 test. Myriad Genetics owns the patent and the test costs several thousand dollars in the US. The patent was overturned in Europe, I believe, so it is probably cheaper there.
  - antiismist 18y ago
    The idea is that a gene in isolation does not exist in nature. You get the patent on the gene isolated from the rest of the DNA. Not saying it is "right"... In other words, you get a patent on using some extract of DNA for a useful purpose like determining cancer susceptibility.