genomeboy.com

“There is absolutely no question,” he said, “that for the whole hope of personalized medicine, the news has been just about as bleak as it could be.”

The New York Times has a feature on population genomicist David Goldstein  that is well worth your time. David, I should say, is a friend and colleague. He’s not always the warmest and fuzziest guy in the world, and his worldview tends to be closely aligned with Eeyore’s. But he is funny, charismatic, engaging and one of the most brilliant people I’ve ever met. He’s right a lot more often than he’s wrong. I had the pleasure of doing some editing on his book, Jacob’s Legacy, which I heartily and objectively recommend (heh).

Mackenzie Cowell (left) and Jason Bobe are trying to create simple, at-home methods for doing sophisticated biology. (Dina Rudick/Globe Staff) 

The clash between the potential benefits and dangers of doing home science were highlighted by the case of Victor Deeb. The retired 71-year-old chemist in Marlborough saw his basement lab dismantled by authorities this summer after it was noticed by fire officials putting out a second-floor air conditioner fire.

The state DEP said officials intervened in Deeb’s workspace because it did not meet lab standards. Chemical companies shipping Deeb their materials were unaware that they were shipping to a residence, authorities said.

Deeb, who said he was trying to make safer surface coatings for food containers, insists that the chemicals he was using were less hazardous than common cleaners and household chemicals. He questions why his hobby was seen as more dangerous than, for example, a hunter with a gun collection, or a person using a propane grill.

“The more I tried to explain, the more they thought I was a lunatic,” Deeb said, questioning why he should need permits to tinker in his basement.

One wonders if maybe we couldn’t use a few more lunatics.

The revolution continues…

Dr. Tenenbaum says patients can get started on a project with as little as $50,000 to $100,000. Sums like that, for example, could fund the creation of a molecular profile of a tumor to try to predict what combination of already approved drugs might be effective. If results proved promising, more money could be raised to set up a full-blown virtual biotech — with a budget in the millions of dollars — that might test cocktails of therapies in animal models and try grouping patients into subtypes to better tailor treatments for them, among other projects.

As usual, Daniel has an outstanding roundup of the latest developments in the personal genomics kerfuffle (or is it a saga?). If Navigenics wins its argument in California — i.e., interpreting a test is not itself a test and therefore not subject to regulation as such — then will we finally be able to move on to the next existential crisis?

In the immortal words of Woody Allen, “I’d call you a sadistic sodomistic necrophile, but that’s beating a dead horse.”