Eurogene

I wrote a post below a few months ago but for various reasons got cold feet about posting it. Yesterday made me angry (like Daniel Macarthur ), warmed them up and so after sleeping on it decided to go ahead. It is about events of 4 years ago but it needs hardly anything changed to make it perfect for today. I have made some slight modifications and added an introduction specifically about yesterdays US Congress Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing into the direct-to-consumer genetic testing industry . The Congress hearing was eerily familiar. There were a few differences, in 2006 it in the Senate and was all out attack by a single senator (a committee of 1), yesterday at least there was balance and some sensible questions from some members of congress. I felt Henry Waxman was OK as was Burgess. The whole hearing was based around the GAO investigation and this was just a mirror image of what happened in 2006. Just the same – selected evidence, highlight the most headline grabbi

I began this by commenting on Mark Henderson’s Blog about his genetic results, I had just had an espresso (and I live in Italy) & got carried away, it’s Mark’s fault as well, he invited comments via Twitter. The Times has become a subscription site for a few weeks – I really urge you to go and subscribe, it’s worth it for now at least (£1 for 30 days), the science coverage is the best in it’s class. Anyway, here are my comments on his excellent article, which you should go and read at: http://bit.ly/9H7iSP   Good stuff Mark and glad that others are climbing over the paywall to read it, it feels pretty lonely here! Just a few comments: 1) "Many of these, however, are based on preliminary, unreplicated findings [re 23andMe]" - this is OK and glad that Gutman agreed yesterday that prelim findings/information is OK as long as it is clearly labelled as such. I'm interested for professional and personal reasons in prelim findings, I can get them from the primary sourc

The NIH is seeking input and advice on the following items: Are there any types of genetic tests that should not be included in the GTR? All tests that make some sort of utility claim should be included, also those that are not overtly connected to health (e.g. Child IQ, sports performance, baldness, etc). One aim of the GTR should be to create confidence in genetic testing and help protect against false or exaggerated claims. To have one single reliable (worldwide I hope) location where anyone, scientist, medic, consumer, journalist, business partner, etc can go to would be very helpful. If we end up with fragmented GTRs for different areas it will be less useful. Although run by NIH the criteria should include more than just strictly health applications Further, the GTR should go beyond “testing” – it should cover all services, especially interpretation services which will become the main area of “personal genetics” as the testing part itself becomes routine. What are the