|DNA sequence data, Wikimedia Commons|
If this turns out to be more than a few anecdotes or personal opinions, and is actually occurring, it's understandable and to be lauded. As we think we can truthfully claim, we have for years been warning of the dangers of the kind of overkill that genomics (and, indeed, other 'omics' fads) present: promise miracles and you had better deliver!
The same thing applies to evolutionary studies that seek whole genome sequences as well as to studies designed to use such data to predict individual diseases. There are too many variants to sort through, the individual signal is too weak, and too many parts of the genome contribute to many if not most traits, for genomes to be all that important--whether for predicting future disease, normal phenotypes like behaviors, or fitness in the face of natural selection.
There are some traits, especially if close to a specific protein, in which only one or a few genes are important. There are many genes which, if broken by mutation, can cause serious problems. And as we've said numerous times, this is where the genetics money should be spent. But the nature of evolution is that it has produced complexity by involving numerous cooperating genetic elements, and traits are typically buffered against mutations. Otherwise, organisms couldn't have gotten so complex (try making a brain or liver with just one gene!). Otherwise, with so many genes and ever-present mutation, nobody in any species would ever survive.
The instances of single-gene or major-mutation causation are numerous and real. They are already handled by services like genetic counseling in biomedicine, and by evolutionary or experimental analysis. But the important nature of Nature is its complexity and at present whole genome sequence data provide too much variation for us to deal with on adequate terms.
Nature screens the success of organisms on their overall traits, regardless of what genotype contributed to it. Many of the contributing variants to a given trait are new mutations or are very rare in the population, and very difficult to detect in terms of assigning 'risk' to them. Worse, they flow through the population all the time, as individuals die and new ones are born. Since their individual effects depend on their context--the ever-changing environment and the rest of the genome--these effects are also fluid. Thus, enumerating causal variants may not be a very useful way to understand biological causation.
Of course, rumors of the demise of ever-higher throughput genomics may be greatly exaggerated. Funding may not actually be diminishing, or may return. Whether that will be a rebound towards good science, or a relapse of low payoff, is a matter of opinion.