tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post5569966117312798975..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: Will you buy your genome on a disk?Anne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-92021157152062474122009-10-07T16:16:13.516-04:002009-10-07T16:16:13.516-04:00Zejen, with respect to the issues we wrote about i...Zejen, with respect to the issues we wrote about in this post, good science involves understanding what genetics has taught us over many years about complexity. The promises that many prominent geneticists have made over the years, that knowing our DNA sequences will let us prevent whatever diseases we are genetically programmed to have, and we'll thus stay healthy into a ripe old age just aren't true. <br /><br />This isn't a secret. That most traits and many chronic diseases are due to many genes, and/or gene(s) by environment interaction, is well-known, but still too often ignored. And, even if we do know what environmental triggers lead to disease, environments can't be predicted, and so neither can future gene by environment interactions. <br /><br />So, our point is that this knowledge is out there, but that too many geneticists continue to ignore biological complexity in favor of pursuing 'genes for' their favorite trait, when paper after paper after paper shows that this is not a successful strategy.Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-91723689045284471432009-10-07T15:10:30.437-04:002009-10-07T15:10:30.437-04:00So, what makes good science?So, what makes good science?JAMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02398321684459275538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-58062616861574763402009-08-11T22:13:34.233-04:002009-08-11T22:13:34.233-04:00But they don't have billions of public dollars...But they don't have billions of public dollars, and venture capital, being invested in them. How different are they from, say, Freudian psychology, phrenology, or alchemy in the sense that some of these things that have weak support become established as legitimate, but others don't?<br /><br />It's not unusual. Basically unsupported theories were accepted doctrine in the physical sciences, and humoural medicine lasted 2000 years!<br /><br />In all cases,and probably even in homeopathy and tarot, after the fact there will always be some apparent successes and that keeps them going.<br /><br />In genetics, there are also successes that are touted after the fact, a kind of conditional post-hoc evaluation that can be used to support almost any view, no? It only takes an occasional such 'hit' to reinforce a belief one doesn't want to give up.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-82139731290211322482009-08-11T22:00:11.227-04:002009-08-11T22:00:11.227-04:00"In spite of what looks to be an increasing a..."In spite of what looks to be an increasing acceptance of genetic complexity, adherents of 'genes for' thinking are still spending increasing time and money on genome-wide association studies (GWAS), looking for genes for their trait, and still claiming great success, DNA testing companies like deCODEme and 23andMe are still in business, claiming to be able to tell you your risk of disease, and people are still buying these services."<br /><br />And homeopaths and tarot readers are still in business. :)RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.com