genomeboy.com

Hsien, as is her wont, has an outstanding summary of the issues surrounding the Genetics and Public Policy Center’s case study of pharmacogenetics and SSRI prescriptions. One narrative in the comments (by guess who) suggests that saliva diviners 23andMe, deCODEme and their ilk have ruined it for everybody and now Big Brother’s gonna have to step in and regulate the bejeezus out of the whole field. I hope that that’s not true — time will tell.

Last week I had the good fortune of enticing three Beacons of the Bloggerati to the class I teach on Science and the Media. They are, left to right, “Abel Pharmboy” (Terra Sigillata), Sheril Kirshenbaum (The Intersection), and the inimitable Bora Zivkovic (A Blog Around the Clock). They are just as smart, funny and charming in person. Thanks, guys–let’s do it again soon!

Genetic Future (about which I can’t say enough good things) points to Jennifer Couzin’s Science article on genetic risk:

Some concerns about the public’s reaction have already eased. Two years ago, behavioral epidemiologist Colleen McBride and human geneticist Lawrence Brody, both at the National Human Genome Research Institute, began examining how healthy individuals respond to disease risk information. They offered volunteers in Detroit, Michigan, the chance to learn whether they carried deleterious variants for eight health conditions, including diabetes, colon cancer, and osteoporosis. Because the variants are common, virtually everyone was expected to harbor at least a couple. Those monitoring the study’s safety “were really worried, literally, that people were going to jump off bridges” when they learned that their risk of disease was increased, says McBride.

Among the 300 or so who have participated, that hasn’t happened–quite the opposite. “They’re not having big emotional responses,” says McBride.

If that’s true–as it appears to be in Alzheimer’s as well–then how does that jibe with the “people-will-freak-out-if-you-tell-them-so-don’t” argument?