I found a more skeptical take on the 23andme story I reported on in my last post. It's in the Kevin Kelly blog, and the post (not by Kevin himself, but that's OK, Gary's cool) is called The Quantified Self.
Still, within all of these stories I caught the first hint of a backlash. This backlash has little to do with the main objection all of these writers presented, which was: do I really want to have this important knowledge about my genes? I don't think this objection is serious. I don't even get a sense the writers seriously entertain it. I suspect it is a rhetorical effect, an exaggerated worry that lends interest to the promise at hand. (Gray goo serves this function for nanotech.) Perhaps it is the nerd in me, but I have difficulty imagining that accurate medical self-knowledge would be rejected by consumers because they are afraid to know.
Anyway, there's a bigger problem. The companies offering these tests carefully insist that they are not be taken diagnostically, and acknowledge that that are not currently accurate indicators of clinical risks. They give these caveats, while of course also trying to satisfy our desire to get accurate clues to our genetic predispositions to scary diseases.
There's more detail and references than I can describe in this necessarily brief post, but here's a taste:
So here is the voice of the future backlash, the voice of the angry doctor whose patients are looking to these tests to guide their medical decisions. This self-described MD with the silly pseudonym published the following comment on the Wall Street Journal health blog, in response to a story by Ron Winslow about another personal genome company, deCode Genetics:
I watched the video that accompanies their announcement. Please people, this is (to quote the CEO on their video) "NOT genetic testing!" And "Do not use this to make medical decisions!" What this is "empowerment" and "networking" and a way to suck $1000 from gullible consumers. I hope some liability lawyers out there save that video and replay in in court as the CEO explains how, exactly, this is not genetic testing.
I.P. Nightly, MD - November 18, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Hmmm. Anne's joint checking account could turn out to be a liability - it's a pipeline into some of the deepest pockets around, as I'm sure the tort lawyers will note.
I remain optimistic. There's more to come in this realm, and the first efforts are bound to be imperfect. Moreover, ethical and moral concerns will need to be addressed in many emerging technologies, so 23andMe is not alone in being on the bleeding edge.
Lots to think about - a long weekend to think about it.
Comments