tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post5118290256619063720..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: Francis Collins, not PT Barnum, and The Greatest Show on EarthAnne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-72296944429312973512012-06-28T05:35:00.453-04:002012-06-28T05:35:00.453-04:00Actually, from a population genetics point of view...Actually, from a population genetics point of view, yes. Our variation is, statistically, roughly the amount that would be seen in a population at steady-state (between mutation of new variation and loss by drift), of about 5-10,000 random-mating, equally reproductive adults in synchronous generations.<br /><br />It's just an approximation, but that roughly characterizes the net result, in terms of genetic variation, of such an idealized state. Then, in the past few thousand years, essentially aided by agriculture's provision of stable, large food sources, we expanded rapidly (in evolutionary terms) to our current 7 billion.<br /><br />That expansion has been so quick in recent, again in evolutionary terms, that we have introduced large amounts of rare, new, geographically restricted variants.<br /><br />That's what the statement means, and it is not one unique to me by any means. It's not controversial.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-37427089390529540652012-06-27T22:38:26.404-04:002012-06-27T22:38:26.404-04:00A million-fold?!?
So there were only 7000 humans ...A million-fold?!?<br /><br />So there were only 7000 humans on Earth before we started farming?<br /><br />Do you have a citation for that?<br /><br />Thx, Peter Lundpeterfireflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05050847835479172236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-64053842925748142912010-09-09T15:45:36.025-04:002010-09-09T15:45:36.025-04:00This would be one of my central views. There are ...This would be one of my central views. There are many clearly genetic diseases. Before we go searching for zillions of tiny genetic contributors, often if not mainly for diseases that are highly if not mainly due to environmental lifestyle factors, let's show that knowing the genes really matters.<br /><br />To do that, I'd divert genetic research funds to the problems of those really genetic disorders.<br /><br />But many disorders including cardiovascular diseases and cancers are largely if not by far mainly, due to lifestyle exposures. Funding to reduce those exposures would improve public health by far, far more than anything we can really dream about from a genetic point of view.<br /><br />And there would be a bonus: after we reduced the needless (lifestyle-caused) cases of these diseases, the residuum that remained would be those cases that really were genetic. They would then be the wholly legitimate targets of research.<br /><br />And by then, had we concentrated on what we already know are genetic diseases, we might have better methods for attacking the residuum of the complex diseases.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-12951525336323781672010-09-09T15:19:01.663-04:002010-09-09T15:19:01.663-04:00Ken and Anne, perhaps I missed some earlier articl...Ken and Anne, perhaps I missed some earlier articles, but I finally understand your primary criticism of Collins as head of NIH, thank you.<br /><br />One of my concerns is the treatment of known genetic diseases while I wonder if over-focus on GWAS could divert needed attention to the development of treatments for known genetic diseases. I know little about this subject, but I read an impressive case study for Glycogen storage disease type II (Pompe disease). Perhaps I might not have read about it if it weren't for the respective Harrison Ford movie. Anyway, merely discovering the genetic cause for Pompe was the tip of the iceberg. The development of the treatment took much more time and money. This leads to my questions: Could an over-focus on GWAS overshadow the more time/money consuming work of developing treatments for known genetic diseases? Could this turn out to be a major problem for NIH and Collins?<br /><br />I know that my questions are loaded, but I hope to learn more about this.James Goetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02412501436355228925noreply@blogger.com