Well there's a couple of things at work. For one, the key barrier to "clinical demand" is that clinicians (other than highly specialized ones) are not really pr

Well there's a couple of things at work. For one, the key barrier to "clinical demand" is that clinicians (other than highly specialized ones) are not really prepared for dealing with genetic results. Most primary care doctors haven't thought about genetics since med school. I would also say that many of them question the utility of such data in clinical care. So I would describe the demand side as "tepid" except for the cases of specialities where it makes a big impact. The above cultural issue is compounded by the fact that genetic testing is the only kind of test that transcends time. Your DNA sequence determined today could (and likely will) mean something different in the future as we learn more about the genome. But medicine historically has been very transactional: your doctor orders a test, the result comes back, you discuss results, make some lifestyle or treatment decisions and move on. With genetic tests, you could be "normal" today and tomorrow a paper lands in the New England Journal of Medicine that demonstrates with high certainty you're going to get early onset dementia or something. Well that's a problem in the current system (at least in the US). Whose job is it to go back and analyze people's genomes and update them with new info like this? Who do you bill for that? How do you notify someone? Some people don't want to know such things, can they opt out? Targeted genetic testing has been used for years to identify specific diseases. But the tech to do huge swaths of the genome affordably is only a few years old. So even the diagnostic tech is still a bit "beta". That's the final piece limiting adoption. We're all collectively figuring out how to do this and how it fits in with existing regulatory requirements. All that "figuring stuff out" takes time.