Sponsored Live Streaming Video. To save this item to your list of favorite Information.

Week content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the.

Scientists Push Back Against Booming Genetic Pseudoscience Market. The premise behind Yes or No Genomics is simple: Genetic disease is typically caused by a variation in at least one of the many thousands of genes in the human genome, so knowing whether your DNA code contains variants could suggest whether your health is at risk.

And for just $1. 99, the scientists at Yes or No Genomics can use special technology to determine that. Except Yes or No Genomics isn’t a real company. It’s satire. The mind behind this parody is Stanford geneticist Stephen Montgomery, who hopes the website he launched this week will highlight the extreme absurdity of many of the “scientific” consumer genetic tests now on the market. Fork over $1. 99 to Yes or No Genomics, and you will find out, inevitably, that you do have genetic variants, because everyone does. And that “specialized optical instrument” used to determine this?

A kaleidoscope. Montgomery is one of a growing number of scientists pushing back against wild claims in the consumer genetics market, which is flush with tests promising to plumb the secrets of our DNA for answers to everything from what kind of wine we’ll enjoy to what diseases we’re at risk of developing. These tests vary wildly in levels of absurdity. One test that recently earned eye- rolls promises to improve a child’s soccer abilities with a personalized, genetics- based training regimen. In case it’s not clear, there is still no way to decode from DNA the perfect plan to turn your 7- year- old into a soccer star.“Clearly, there is a whole world of companies that are trying to take advantage of people,” Montgomery told Gizmodo. We need to help people avoid getting caught in these genetic traps.”In the wake of that ridiculous Soccer Genomics test, Montgomery’s parody site went viral among those who closely follow genetics developments on the web.

And he isn’t the only researcher who has realized that combatting psuedoscience in the annals of academic journals isn’t enough. For years, Daniel Mac. Arthur, a geneticist at the Broad Institute, ran a blog dedicated in part to exposing bad science in the realm of genetics. Like many scientists, he now uses Twitter to call attention to bogus tests. Other reliable Twitter crusaders include UCLA geneticist Leonid Kruglyak, health policy expert Timothy Caufield, and Cal. Tech computational biologist Lior Pachter. For every new pseudoscientific DNA test, it seems more voices join the chorus.“It’s a pretty exciting time to be in genetics.

Montgomery is one of a growing number of scientists pushing back against wild claims in the consumer genetics market, which is flush with tests promising to plumb the. The Model 3 will retail for $35,000 and is Tesla’s bid to expand the company beyond the luxury market. It’s the primary reason Tesla shares have increased in. Kaplan Acca F1 Books Free Download. Foreign Exchange Rates & World Currencies - Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/currencies Current exchange rates of major world currencies.

There’s a lot happening,” Mac. Arthur told Gizmodo. Finding out which wine you’re “genetically” likely to enjoy probably isn’t going to hurt much more than your wallet. But that’s not always the case. Mac. Arthur pointed to a simple genetic test that claimed it could detect autism, which he and his colleagues spoke out about after finding out the test had a patent in the works.“We were very confidant that the variants they were testing for had no relationship to autism,” he said.

For academics it’s easy to see that. But who is responsible for going out there and pushing back?

InformationWeek.com connects the business technology community. Award-winning news and analysis for enterprise IT.

That’s less clear.”In 2. European Journal of Human Genetics article argued for better regulatory control of direct- to- consumer genetic testing, pointing out that many of these tests run the risk of being little better than horoscopes. In rare cases, the Food and Drug Administration has stepped in.

You have not yet voted on this site! If you have already visited the site, please help us classify the good from the bad by voting on this site.

In 2. 01. 3, it cracked down on 2. Me, ordering the company to cease providing analyses of people’s risk factors for disease until the tests’ accuracy could be validated. After gaining FDA approval, the company now provides assessments and risk factors on a small fraction of 2.

But the FDA has steered away from policing smaller, fringe companies like, say, those offering advice on your skin, diet, fitness and what super power you are most likely to possess. Some companies the FDA likely does not even have authority to police, since not all of them can be considered “medical interventions.”“It’s kind of distressing to see . Historically that just really hasn’t happened.”Another thing Mac. Arthur would like to see is companies list the “scientific” data underlying their claims. If consumers could easily see, for example, that the recommendation to drink apple juice from the company DNA Lifestyle Coachstemmed from a study of just 6.

Inspired by satirists like Stephen Colbert, Montgomery is interested in how effective parody might be as a tool to combat bad science.