
Layoffs Confirmed At 23andMe  - rms
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/29/layoffs-confirmed-at-23andme/
======
jacquesm
23andme is a concept that needs a lot more groundwork before dumping all that
information on the public.

For one it should be accompanied by a basic course in genetics and another in
probability theory.

GPs are amongst the most overworked people in any profession and they really
don't need to have a crowd of ill-informed consumers pestering them with their
newfound diseases.

Personal genetic screening is potentially a good thing but the implementation
of it currently leaves a lot to be desired.

This is _not_ a consumer product.

~~~
bbgm
Conversely one could argue that having access to your SNP data, accompanied by
some good learning material and software (and 23andme do a pretty good job
here) is the best way for people to get a better understanding of this kind of
data.

You have to start somewhere and the underlying technology is now mature enough
that having a commercial company (or companies in this case) take a lead in
writing material and software targeted at the consumer is a good thing.

~~~
jacquesm
Maybe. All I see is that people that are worried about some heritable disease
are out $400.

I spent the better part of a year to brush up on genetics (because my former
gf worked in a university lab doing a project for her PhD) and this stuff is
not something you explain in a leaflet or booklet.

That may be _just_ enough to get them to interpret the data.

Also note that their 'genetics 101' simplifies things to the point that it
should qualify as entertainment.

To really interpret this data and to get some idea of what the (potential)
impact on your life is you need a lot of background and possibly a multi-hour
sit-down with an expert in the field.

And that's all still before looking at things like should a commercial entity
have access to your genetic information ?

Note that their privacy policy explicitly permits them to make available to
third parties your genetic data, but 'without your name or any other account
information'.

Those people should know better, after all what is more identifying than your
genome...

And what if they get bought out by some third party that decides to play fast
and loose with this information.

~~~
bbgm
I am not denying the complexity or the potential risks, but I also believe
that this is the kind of information people should understand, and can take to
a genetic counselor and discuss. The information is well curated, updated, you
get your raw data.

I would insist on that policy. Genetic information in it's individuality is of
no use. With a large enough pool with associated traits, it's ideal for
research and that's why they have it.

I live in this world and yes, the data are complex, but there are some very
smart people working on making this more accessible (including at 23andme). If
we want people to be curious about genetics, make an effort to understand the
information, and also understand the implications, if a commercial entity
comes along to give this a shot in the arm, it's a good thing. If it's too
early, the market will make that decision.

------
wavesplash
Two week old article. Why is it getting published now?

Just to add some content: 23andme never did complete genomes, they only
targeted specific markers. As a consumer product there really wasn't anything
compelling, and it was too expensive.

They've now changed their business strategy from consumer to B2B and let go
most of the consumer folks.

~~~
jacquesm
> Why is it getting published now?

Because posting techcrunch articles is guaranteed karma ;)

> They've now changed their business strategy from consumer to B2B and let go
> most of the consumer folks.

So much for the 'me' part then.

Even if they didn't do 'whole genome' there might be a freezer there with the
samples that they took in, so in the long run when whole genome analysis
becomes cheap enough they might do a 'replay'.

They reserve the right to share your genetic data but at the same time they
say they will not share your 'personal information' without your consent.

That's the weirdest thing I've ever seen in a privacy statement, for one it is
contradictory (genetic data being rather personal), and on top of that it gets
the priorities completely wrong.

The only good privacy policy for a company like this would be 'We _guarantee_
that we destroy all information you have supplied us with after we send you
your results, this includes any samples and personal data'.

Anything less simply won't do.

------
FreeRadical
I think this is a company that is only being propped up by the capital
injected to be honest.

~~~
jacquesm
It is essentially the hobby project of the spouse of a very wealthy
individual, but that doesn't mean it couldn't take off.

The lay-offs are a sign that not all is well though, when their #2 took off a
couple of months ago that was a clear indication that things were not going in
the right direction.

What puzzled me at the time was why they were doing their best to spin it
rather than to just be up-front about the reasons. If 23andme was a an all-out
success you can bet that their first-in staff would not be leaving.

------
eventhough
I've always wondered what good it would do me to know that I have a certain
percentage chance of getting Alzheimer or Parkinson disease. In some
situations I could understand the use (certain highly predictable cancers),
but in most cases I don't see the point.

I already live a healthy lifestyle. I eat right. I don't smoke. I exercise 2-3
times a week. I don't think I could try much harder.

To me it's kind of like trying to figure out when I'm going to die. Why do I
want to know this? Just let me live my life.

These are some reasons why I don't think people buy these kinds of tests. That
and the fact that it costs $500!

~~~
hnhg
A former colleague of mine was working on an EU project to gauge what outcomes
this technology would have. The Medical Associations were and are objecting to
it being rushed into the public domain without regulation. The Doctors
themselves don't have the knowledge to interpret what those results might mean
for you in the long-term and the scope for over-diagnosis is huge. And a
market for quacks in this field is also sadly inevitable.

From what I hear this is also turning out to be the opinion from US health
professionals. Though I guess the health insurance companies would love this
technology...

------
ghshephard
Two weeks old. Not News.

~~~
rms
It was to me.

