I agree with most of the article, but I'll argue that there are some genes that do have a 1:1 relationship with diseases. I work investigating them. There's a

I agree with most of the article, but I'll argue that there are some genes that do have a 1:1 relationship with diseases. I work investigating them. There's a spectrum of genetic variants. Most (like 99% might be an underestimate) are completely benign and have no effect. Some affect traits that you have, like your height, intelligence, or susceptibility to schizophrenia or diabetes (lots contribute to these), or eye colour (fewer contribute to this). But there are also mutations that single-handedly will cause a disastrous child-onset disease. One of the first things I learnt when starting studying genetics more than 20 years ago was that living things will break almost every rule you make up for them. So we say that genes are to make proteins - the information flows from DNA to RNA to protein. That rule gets broken in various ways - retroviruses flow the information back from RNA to DNA, some genes never get converted to protein but the RNA they produce is active instead. So the message is absolutely that most times we try and say things about genetics, and every single time it will be an over-simplification. And this applies to the article too.