The DNA Network |
| Wired How-To Features “Do It Yourself” Genetic Tests [Think Gene] Posted: 08 Jul 2008 08:22 PM CDT Two weeks ago, we alluded how one could run one’s own genetic tests. Now, Wired has grabbed the gene baton and has launched a home genomics how-to guide: Check Yourself for Genetic Abnormalities. Wired is the banner publication of everything early adopter, but don’t expect much early adoption yet: the day belongs to the scrappy hobbyist innovators. Hobbyists are noisy, and they are more than the few wealthy patrons of yesterday’s DTC (direct to consumer) genomics market, but hobbyists are also notoriously frugal. I predict a flat revenue time-of-trials for DTC genomic start-ups amid a boom of grassroots interest until a bigger market meets a falling price.
The famous market graph from Crossing the Chasm, a staple read in any technology start up or MBA program. DTC genomics is still in its enthusiasts phase, though Wired articles suggest market movement towards early adopters. Worse, as the graph above suggests, this is merely the first market barrier for genomics. The real business challenge lies between the pre-interested and everybody else. Who of the big three DTC genomics start-ups will tolerate years of meager profits to consistent losses in this slowing economy and hostile American regulatory environment? We’ll publish a more in-depth how-to soon. Our goal is that with our guide, the average enthusiast will be able to conduct at least one hobby genomics test. Perhaps, in our own small way, we’ll help the industry by rushing the bloom of geepy*, techcrunch-y publicity into an early harvest of paying customers. *geepy: adj. “geek cheap,” or of how the well-to-do geek considers paying for new technology an engineering challenge to be surmounted, even at great inconvenience, time, and effort |
| State of California vs. Personal Genetic Testing [Bayblab] Posted: 08 Jul 2008 02:14 PM CDT This is a brief follow-up on Rob's 23andMe post. In the comments there, I wondered aloud about counselling services and possible misinterpretation of results. It turns out the normally progressive State of California is taking those concerns seriously, and recently sent cease and desist orders to 23andMe and 12 other personal genetics companies. The basis of the order was two-fold. First, the State requires that all such companies must be certified by both the state and federal governments, with the idea being to safeguard privacy and protect consumers from charlatans who might turn around and sell that data to the highest bidder. Secondly, California law requires that genetic tests be ordered by the patient's doctor. Here, presumably the motivation is make sure someone (the doctor) is going to help properly interpret the results. [T]he site still provides some probabilities of getting certain diseases. And while none of these sites are going to offer any life-shattering information (e.g. "You will die before you hit 30″), many health care professionals worry that any amount of genetic information could be misinterpreted. What happens when a patient finds out they have a lower-than-average risk of heart failure that leads them to neglect regular checkups? Then again, it's my information - shouldn't I be free to (mis)interpret it as I see fit?23andMe feels they are acting withing current law, and are continuing business as usual, at the risk of a fine of up to $3000 per day. Is this a case of an over-protective nanny state, or a legitimate consumer protection issue? |
| Overselling genomics Award #5: Duckweed will save the world [The Tree of Life] Posted: 08 Jul 2008 12:57 PM CDT OK. I really wanted to leave this one alone because it involves the Joint Genome Institute (JGI) where I work part of the time. And I really like JGI and what it is doing in many aspects of genomics. But this one is just so over the top that I could not leave it alone. There is a press release from Rutgers that came out regarding a new project to sequence the duckweed genome (see News: Duckweed genome sequencing has global implications) and the Eureka release here And this one is just so over the top in terms of overselling I do not know where to begin. First, they had me at the title Duckweed genome sequencing has global implicationsBut the subtitle is even better Pond scum can undo pollution, fight global warming and alleviate world hungerThere is really little else to say. I commend the JGI and DOE for supporting this work as it sounds reasonable and work on this organism may have many uses. But, umm, this was the most obvious "Overselling genomics award" I have ever given. |
| Biocensorship for the Biocentury? [The Personal Genome] Posted: 08 Jul 2008 11:06 AM CDT The freedom to explore one’s own biology, all the way down to the molecular level, should be among the freedoms we hold dear as individuals. I’m agitated that the censorship of personal biological data is being advocated as a reasonable course of action to reign-in the nascent consumer genomics industry. Self-examination should not require permission from any authority. For most of human history, the ability of an individual to learn about their own body through self-examination was limited to little more than the five senses: sight, touch, hearing, taste, and smell. Modern technological advances have extended these natural abilities dramatically. Devices allow us now to see details about ourselves that were once low resolution, out-of-sight, or even unimaginable. Keychain widgets can dispense data on blood-alcohol levels. Joggers can monitor fluctuations in heart rate plotted against GPS-gathered data about their path, elevation, and pace. Diabetics can obtain instant glucose readings. Video games can track longitudinal BMI scores. Alarm clocks can monitor REM cycles and promise to wake their owners at a time when they are the most well-rested, the least sluggish, and still able to be on-time for the morning appointment. The ability of individuals to obtain vast quantities of data about their own biology and environments is a new frontier. Most people are hardly aware the frontier exists at all. Only a handful of explorers have set-off into the deep data wilderness. Individuals who have access to biological data about themselves face certain risks. For example, the data might be cause for confusion or lead to actions that are regrettable. These risks are not unique to biological data. All data have the potential to be dangerous to those who choose to consume it. Restricting access to personal biological data under the premise that “data are dangerous” and people need blanket protection from misunderstandings they may encounter is tantamount to censorship. The only reason more people are not outraged about this new species of censorship — biocensorship — is because the ability of individuals to obtain vast quantities of cheap data about personal biology and their environments is a new phenomenon. The introduction now of gatekeepers to “protect you” from your personal biological data would go largely unnoticed, at least for a few more years. Regulatory oversight of personalized medicine ain’t all bad. But, we should be careful about hamstringing the biocentury with biocensorship and limiting the freedoms of individuals to examine their molecular selves. biocensorship, biofreedom, consumer genomics, dtc, genomics, Legislation, policy |
| Priority=Public Enemy? [The Gene Sherpa: Personalized Medicine and You] Posted: 08 Jul 2008 06:19 AM CDT I hope all of my readers get the GenomeWeb Daily News. Today the headline read..... SACGHS Task Force Sees Consumer Genomics as 'Number One Priority' This meeting is currently underway.....the... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]] |
| Falling for Molecular Biology [Bitesize Bio] Posted: 08 Jul 2008 05:37 AM CDT
The topic makes me think of how I chose molecular biology as a field of study, wide-eyed with thoughts of playing in the lab for a job. At the time (~1994-95), the promise of the Human genome project was big in the news, I was inspired by a great High School Biology teacher, and I was in awe of the idea of a career filled with curiosity and laboratory-based tinkering. Of course, I quickly learned the annoying truth that a lot of molecular biology involves endless repetitions of DNA preps, running gels, etc. And the inexperienced researcher gets bogged down for long periods of time in troubleshooting. But with focus and direction, I do get to live out my early idealized version of what it would be like to be a laboratory scientist. I work relatively independently, identifying questions (and hypotheses) of interest, and acquiring/evaluating the data to answer those questions. Curiosity and data analysis ARE my job, as corny as that sounds. |
| Social networks in everything: Rare medical disorder edition [business|bytes|genes|molecules] Posted: 07 Jul 2008 11:57 PM CDT I take a somewhat voyeuristic delight in finding out about the kinds of subjects people build social networks around. Today ReadWriteWeb points us to Rareshare, a social network for people coping with rare diseases. I actually believe that building hyperspecific communities works in driving engagement, but I have never understood how, with certain exceptions, such networks could be monetized.  |
| Can recycling be used to treat cancer? [Think Gene] Posted: 07 Jul 2008 11:24 PM CDT Josh: Hopefully other cancers will be able to be targeted in a similar manner, especially ones that are almost always caused by a mutation in a particular gene, as is the case with renal cell carcinoma. We already know that recycling benefits our planet; and now new research suggests that the cellular version might be useful for battling cancer. Scientists at Stanford University have identified a molecule that uses this unexpected pathway to selectively kill cancer cells. The research, published by Cell Press in the July 8th issue of the journal Cancer Cell, may drive treatment strategies for cancer in an entirely new direction. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the most common form of kidney cancer, is nearly always caused by mutation of the von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) tumor suppressor gene and often does not respond well to treatment. (more…) |
| Science Commons’ John Wilbanks on the Declan Butler article [My Biotech Life] Posted: 07 Jul 2008 10:52 PM CDT Asked for a brief note on the whole Nature vs. PLoS issue, John Wilbanks (Science Commons) wrote a couple paragraphs where I’d like to highlight some instances:
Considering that most (all) reactions came from science related bloggers, the resulting throughput of comments and blog posts was surely expected. After all, the article was published in a scientific magazine.
I like the idea of PLoS as a startup that is keeping to it’s original goal while trying to work out the kinks regarding the open-access publishing model. And I agree, they have produced high quality peer reviewed science. Read John Wilbanks’ post at his Nature Network. Post from: My Biotech Life |
| Researchers reveal types of genes necessary for brain development [Think Gene] Posted: 07 Jul 2008 10:37 PM CDT Josh: This had to be painstaking work. It’s exciting that this type of work is being done though, because this should give some insight into how the brain develops. As we apply it to other organ development, it should help with regeneration or growing organs for transplant. Researchers from Harvard Medical School and Brandeis University have successfully completed a full-genome RNAi screen in neurons, showing what types of genes are necessary for brain development. Details of the screen and its novel methodology are published July 4th in the open-access journal PLoS Genetics. Recent advances in genomics, such as the sequencing of entire genomes and the discovery of RNA-interference as a means of testing the effects of gene loss, have opened up the possibility to systematically analyze the function of all known and predicted genes in an organism. Until now, this type of functional genomics approach has not been applied to the study of very complex cells, such as the brain’s neurons, on a full-genome scale. (more…) |
| History Forget: How not to explain the impact of Prozac [Omics! Omics!] Posted: 07 Jul 2008 10:06 PM CDT Having escaped the usual abode for the weekend, there were a pile of the accumulated newspapers to digest on the train this morning. The Sunday Globe Ideas section caught my eye with an item by Jonah Lehrer titled "Head Fake: How Prozac sent the science of depression in the wrong direction". It's not an awful article -- once you get past that subtitle. But, it isn't a great article either. The article puts forth the thesis that Prozac led to a chemical theory of depression, which recent literature has seriously upended. Alas, that greatly distorts the history. Prozac was not the first successful drug nor the real antecedent to a chemical theory of depression. Early antidepressives such as the tricyclics and monoamine oxidase inhibitors opened the path to thinking that depression was due to imbalances in specific neurotransmitters. Prozac itself, as a Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI), was an outgrowth of that work -- given the previous success with psychoactive drugs which seemed to affect many neurotransmitters and evidence that specific neurotransmitters might be more important for specific psychological diseases, it was natural to try to zoom in on one neurotransmitter. Prozac then is not a paradigm shifter (ala Kuhn) but was an extension of the existing paradigm. The success of SSRIs, partly due to a significantly attenuated side effect profile and partly due to a lot of popular press and partly due to marketing, merely pushed an existing theory up the ranks, particularly in the popular zeitgeist. Lehrer does do a nice job of summarizing some recent work suggesting how antidepressants may really work, which is that they may help neurons heal (a new paradigm of depression as a neurodegenerative disease). In a recent conversation a clinician acquaintance noted to me some of the same key points (I'll confess to having not read the literature myself), so there's nothing wrong here. He also notes that it was the investigation of inconsistencies of observation with the predictions of the chemical imbalance theory, such as the frequently observed time lag between beginning antidepressant therapy and seeing results, which led to the new theory. But getting back to that irksome subtitle, did Prozac steer "the science of depression in the wrong direction" or simply on a winding path? Yes, the chemical imbalance theory looks like it may be down for the count. However, it was that very same theory, via its shortcomings, that led to the new theory. This is how science works -- it's often indirect & messy. That's an important message that's lost (or nearly so) in the piece. SSRIs were perhaps a blunt tool, but they are the tool which has unlocked a new understanding of the topic. Could we have gotten to the current understanding of depression without SSRIs and other chemical antidepressants? That's an exercise in alternative history best left to experts in the field, if anyone. Perhaps we might have, but perhaps not -- or would have via an even more tortuous path. It is important to get out the story of how pharmaceutical antidepressants do and do not work, but it is equally important to get out the story of how science really works. |
Last week’s issue of Science has a book review that might appeal to any Bitesize Bio reader: | You are subscribed to email updates from The DNA Network To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner |
Inbox too full?  Subscribe to the feed version of The DNA Network in a feed reader. | |
| If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: The DNA Network, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment