I haven't read the article. Sorry, nytimes tends to be a bit thin on new information. That said, Gattaca is unpractical for two very practical reasons: First,

I haven't read the article. Sorry, nytimes tends to be a bit thin on new information. That said, Gattaca is unpractical for two very practical reasons: First, environment matters at least as much as genetics. Second, the Heisenberg Principle: knowing about a genetic predisposition will change it. Who do you think has a bigger chance of having diabetes: somebody who was tested at birth to have a 35% chance, or somebody with 10%? In the real world and with reasonably cheap medicine it's the second. With a 1/3 chance, not only will you have regular checkups, but you'll watch your diet and most likely take preventive medicine. Actually I think this is a still virgin aria which may develop a lot with genetic testing: get early treatment so as _not_ to get a certain disease.