genomeboy.com

My older brother, with whom I share 50% of my DNA*, gets his book pimped in today’s New York Times:

I’ve been reading a truly excellent book by Joshua Angrist and Jorn-Steffen Pischke called Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. It’s not written for a general audience, but if you pulled an A- or better on a college-level econometrics course (and if you love Freakonomics), then this is the book for you.

It makes a swell gift, too.

*as far as I know anyway…oh Mom, you little minx

Dr. Kao did not deny placing large numbers of seeds outside the prostate, but he said investigators were wrong to single him out. “It’s a recognized risk of the procedure,” he told the panel.

Dr. Kao’s assertion was disputed by Steven A. Reynolds, who oversees materials safety at the N.R.C., which regulates all nuclear materials. Cases where large numbers of seeds miss the prostate, Mr. Reynolds said, “happen very, very infrequently.”

Mr. Specter called the accusations against Dr. Kao serious. Responding to questions from the senator, Dr. Kao confirmed that he had on occasion implanted seeds in the bladder.

“Did you notify the patient?” Mr. Specter asked.

“No, sir,” Dr. Kao replied.

Ahem. Take it away…

I’m not always the biggest Gina Kolata fan, but her piece in this morning’s New York Times is a must-read:

Yet the fight against cancer is going slower than most had hoped, with only small changes in the death rate in the almost 40 years since it began.

One major impediment, scientists agree, is the grant system itself. It has become a sort of jobs program, a way to keep research laboratories going year after year with the understanding that the focus will be on small projects unlikely to take significant steps toward curing cancer.

“These grants are not silly, but they are only likely to produce incremental progress,” said Dr. Robert C. Young, chancellor at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia and chairman of the Board of Scientific Advisors, an independent group that makes recommendations to the cancer institute.

The play’s the thing:

For the second study, Ms. Sands sent identical scripts to artistic directors and literary managers around the country. The only difference was that half named a man as the writer (for example, Michael Walker), while half named a woman (i.e., Mary Walker). It turned out that Mary’s scripts received significantly worse ratings in terms of quality, economic prospects and audience response than Michael’s. The biggest surprise? “These results are driven exclusively by the responses of female artistic directors and literary managers,” Ms. Sands said.

Amid the gasps from the audience, an incredulous voice called out, “Say that again?”

Ms. Sands put it another way: “Men rate men and women playwrights exactly the same.”

I was trying to embed the recent Charlie Rose show featuring George Church, Steve Pinker, Linda Avey and Anne Wojcicki…epic fail on my part. (UPDATE: Jason succeeds). In any event, you should watch it.

Meanwhile, here’s your consolation prize :

“My concern is that [these tests] are being marketed to the public as if there is no question about it,” says Merikangas, speaking generally about direct-to-consumer genomic tests that purport to offer people any truly predictive health advice. “Some people might understand that it is not a death sentence to them, but to others who are struggling, it could lead them not to have children or get married.”

Oy vey. 

George points me to TruGenetics(TM), Inc., which purports to offer the first 10,000 signer-uppers their very own variomes for free, nada, zilch, zero, bupkes etc. From the Terms and Conditions:

Risks
You may not anticipate the affect [sic] of knowing some types of genetic information. As part of this process, you will have access to genetic information that may lead to an emotional response or trouble you. For instance, your [sic] may learn some unanticipated information about yourself or a family member. This may have social, legal, or economic implications that you cannot anticipate at this time. Although we will give you the opportunity to review all of your genetic information, you will also be able to chose [sic] to not review certain genetic information until you are ready. We will also offer genetic counseling services that can help you better understand the implications of the genetic information.

We all knew this day was coming. Typing 500,000 markers is cheaper than a good meal in some places.

But what’s the business model here? Is free genotyping enough to cannibalize market share from the Big Three? What happens to “customer” 10,001?

Is there really a free lunch?

President Obama will appoint a new bioethics commission, one with a new mandate and that “offers practical policy options,” Mr. Cherlin said

 ***

Under Dr. Kass in particular, the council was sometimes accused of being more ideological than its predecessors, but several bioethicists said that was not entirely fair.

“The other view is that all presidential commissions are structured in the context of a particular administration,” said Dr. Ruth Faden, a bioethicist at John Hopkins University.

Bioethics commissions, mostly at the presidential level, have been in existence since 1974. Composed mostly of biologists and ethicists, they have served to familiarize the public with new advances and have developed guidance on contentious issues like genetic engineering, human cloning and research on humans.

Under Dr. Kass the council produced reports with a somewhat philosophical bent on issues like the screening of newborns and how to determine death.

A sad day. I, for one, will miss being told not to eat ice cream in public.

(via GenomeWeb)

The editor-in-chief of a journal is to resign after claiming that the publisher, Bentham Science Publishing, accepted a hoax article for publication without his knowledge.The fake, computer-generated manuscript was submitted to The Open Information Science Journal by Philip Davis, a graduate student in communication sciences at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, and Kent Anderson, executive director of international business and product development at The New England Journal of Medicine. They produced the paper using software that generates grammatically correct but nonsensical text, and submitted the manuscript under pseudonyms in late January.

Well, now I know what I want for my birthday.