
Genetics prof: Why I won’t waste my money on a DNA test in 2014 - linux_devil
http://www.venturebeat.com/2013/12/31/genetics-prof-why-i-wont-waste-my-money-on-a-dna-test-in-2014/
======
Drifter
I got a genetic test done with 23andme. It said I had a (greater probability
of a) warfarin sensitivity. This was interesting because my grandma had a
stroke after being given warfarin. The stroke put her in a wheelchair for the
rest of her life - it ended her independence and she had to go into a home
with 24hr care. It was horrible.

After this I got my entire family tested. As expected my mother carried the
warfarin gene (the grandma was on her side of the family).

Knowing this information is hugely valuable to me. I think it's awful that the
FDA deems fit to prevent me getting information about myself.

~~~
dzhu
Warfarin sensitivity is _precisely_ why 23andMe needs to be regulated; 23andMe
has NOT clinically (or analytically) validated any of the claims around the
specific SNPs they've identified. All 23andMe does is link to research papers
that may suggest that there are gene variants that are linked to warfarin
sensitivity; however, these have not been validated to be clinically
significant.

In fact, just last month, the New England Journal of Medicine published a
landmark study around the pharmacogenomics of warfarin dosing, which found
that this very genetic data does NOT affect/improve warfarin dosing
([http://www.nih.gov/news/health/nov2013/nhlbi-19.htm](http://www.nih.gov/news/health/nov2013/nhlbi-19.htm),
original paper:
[http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1310669](http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1310669)).
In light of this, this warfarin sensitivity information that you've obtained
from 23andMe is almost certainly a false positive, and if you were on a
prescribed warfarin treatment, 23andMe would've likely resulted in a change in
your behavior that would be strictly detrimental to your health.

~~~
mindcrime
_In light of this, this warfarin sensitivity information that you 've obtained
from 23andMe is almost certainly a false positive, and if you were on a
prescribed warfarin treatment, 23andMe would've likely resulted in a change in
your behavior that would be strictly detrimental to your health._

I don't think there is any valid basis for that claim. A rational person (and
I only mean "somewhat rational", I'm not talking about an Econ101 "perfectly
rational actor" here) would get their 23andMe results, go "hmmm, this is
interesting" and line up a visit to their primary care physician to talk about
the results, and what it might mean for their treatment... at which point
additional tests might be indicated, or the doctor could more fully explain
the various tradeoffs, implications, etc.

There's no _particular_ reason to assume that people are going to randomly
adjust their medications based on 23andMe results alone.

And, even if they do, so be it - the price of personal freedom is individual
responsibility for the outcome of your actions.

~~~
vidarh
If only most people where sufficiently rational to respond that way to things,
we could do away with a whole lot of regulation of all kinds of things.

~~~
cema
We can indeed.

This appears to be more a political issue than a scientific one.

------
temphn
Hank Greely is not a "genetics prof", he is a bioethicist in Stanford's Law
School. He doesn't develop new genetic technologies. This is like calling a
film critic a director.

[http://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/hank-
greely](http://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/hank-greely)

~~~
Snail_Commando
> "Hank Greely is not a "genetics prof", he is a bioethicist in Stanford's Law
> School. He doesn't develop new genetic technologies. This is like calling a
> film critic a director.

[http://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/hank-
greely](http://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/hank-greely) "

I'm not sure your assessment is entirely correct.

Here's an excerpt from the same page you linked to:

 _" Greely is also a professor (by courtesy) of genetics at Stanford School of
Medicine."_

I don't know how professorships by courtesy work at Stanford.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professors_in_the_United_State...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professors_in_the_United_States#Professor_by_courtesy_.2F_affiliated_professor)

Assuming that the content currently in that section of Wikipedia is correct
and is congruent with how things work at Stanford, he _is_ a "genetics prof".

Or we can just take his Stanford bio at face value.

Also, we should consider what the man has to say. Whether or not he
"develop[s] new genetic technologies" is irrelevant if his opinions are valid
and his facts are correct. If you take issue with the opinions he has or the
facts he states, then address those head on.

The man's thoughts are being called upon because he is a domain expert in
bioethics (and, as we've just found out, genetics). I think it would be a good
bet that this man has a wealth of relevant domain knowledge with respect to
state of the art genetics research, gene sequencing technologies, and genomics
startups.

Qualification sniping tends to be a poor way of discounting what someone has
to say.

~~~
patrickg_zill
It seems extremely, extremely clear from the page you linked ... look at the
sidebar: Education: BA 1974 from Stanford, Law Degree.

He is a lawyer, and did not even get a science-related degree when he took his
bachelor's (BA = Bachelor of Arts).

~~~
Snail_Commando
I'm honestly baffled by the reaction to this. You're absolutely right that it
is extremely clear.

It says he is a director at the Center of Law and the Biomedical Sciences at
the School of Law and that he is a Professor (by courtesy) of Genetics at the
School of Medicine.

It literally says that in his bio.

Yet at least three people in this thread have felt the need to inform HN that
"he's not a genetics prof" and then _link to the bio of him that lists him as
a Professor (by courtesy) of Genetics at the Stanford School of Medicine._

What does the education portion of your comment have to do with my comment?
The comment I was responding to said he was _not_ a Genetics professor, I
responded by saying that he _is_ a Genetics professor (according to his
Stanford bio).

I wasn't saying that he was not a legal expert as well.

~~~
patrickg_zill
I am sorry, if you feel I am being snarky. But "by courtesy" plainly is used
as some form of honorary title - if he had it "by merit" they would not use
the term.

Given that the title of the article at least, implies that a person with deep
knowledge of the science (not the ethics) of genetics is expressing an
opinion, it seems fair to point out that there is no indication of deep math
skills, or of chemistry, physics, biochemistry, etc. knowledge.

~~~
Snail_Commando
> " But "by courtesy" plainly is used as some form of honorary title - if he
> had it "by merit" they would not use the term. "

You know why the Stanford School of Medicine gave him that title? It wasn't
for merit? And Stanford is using the "by courtesy" term differently than how
it is normally defined?

> "Given that the title of the article at least, implies that a person with
> deep knowledge of the science (not the ethics) of genetics is expressing an
> opinion, it seems fair to point out that there is no indication of deep math
> skills, or of chemistry, physics, biochemistry, etc. knowledge."

Just to be clear, are you saying that you see no indication that Greely has a
deep knowledge of the science behind his field of study-- based on the title
and content of a ~700 word _Venturebeat_ post?

I'm not going to comment on this thread anymore. If you want, you can look
through his publications. But I doubt that would change your mind.

------
daemonk
Were the raw data consistent? I can understand that the 3 companies were
interpreting the raw data differently, but were the underlying snp frequencies
consistent?

If they are not consistent, then the whole thing is pointless and they need to
work on better kits. If they are consistent, it still doesn't say much.

Genome wide association studies (GWAS) are very hard to control. And most
papers tend to ignore external factors when they conduct the analysis. Do
these group of people have this phenotype because of particular snps or do
they have it because they have similar diets, similar geographic area, similar
age range?

------
tehwalrus
not a genetics prof - a law prof.

[http://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/hank-
greely](http://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/hank-greely)

~~~
Snail_Commando
> "not a genetics prof - a law prof.

[http://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/hank-
greely](http://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/hank-greely) "

From the page you linked:

 _" Greely is also a professor (by courtesy) of genetics at Stanford School of
Medicine."_

It seems that he is a Professor (by courtesy) of Genetics, he is on the
Steering Committee for Biomedical Ethics, and is a director at the Center of
Law and the Biosciences.

Here is my other comment on the matter:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6994518](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6994518)

~~~
sampo
Normally you would assume that if someone is a genetics prof., they would have
some formal training in genetics. Which in this case is not true. He was
trained in a law school, but is now cooperating with genetics and medicine
people.

~~~
Snail_Commando
The only thing I disagree with in your comment is the "Which in this case is
not true." portion.

We cannot make that inference based on the information in the article and the
bio that has been linked exhaustively in this comment section. Please see the
comment from 'tzs:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6994924](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6994924)

If someone has more information, I suppose they could step forward; but I
really think we should hew in the direction of addressing arguments instead of
dissecting qualifications. That's not to say you should never question
qualifications, it's just that it's so much better to address arguments. And
it was really weird that people short circuited to dissection mode, as though
we should simply ignore the man and move on. (I'm not trying to imply this
about your comment.)

The rest of this comment isn't really directed at you, I just want to append
the rest of my thoughts here.

I was really surprised to see some of HN get so hung up on the formal training
of an interviewee in an otherwise relatively benign article. It seems like the
kind of thing that HN would usually embrace.

After all, are we really going to ignore the 115+ publications that Mr. Greely
has either been an author or co-author of? Many of which are in leading
journals of fields relative to this discussion. Are we going to discount the
decades he has spent studying and interpreting this domain? Does the fact
that, for whatever reason, Stanford has acknowledged his expertise in multiple
areas relevant to this discussion not count for anything? How exactly do we
weight this demonstrated experience vs. formal qualification?

What is frustrating to me about a couple comments here is that they got hung
up on the wording of the venturebeat post and then short circuited to
qualification sniping mode.

I think it would be more productive to address the interviewee's related
opinions and stated facts.

