Genomics brought to the point of absurdity

Scientists against "pseudogenetics"

Anna Kerman, XX2 century, based on Gizmodo: Scientists Push Back Against Booming Genetic Pseudoscience Market

The premise behind the company's services Yes or No Genomics (literally translated as "Yes or no genomics"), looks like this: genetic diseases are caused by a variation of at least one of the many thousands of genes in the human genome. Therefore, if you know whether your genetic code contains such a mutation, you can draw appropriate conclusions about the risks to your health. And for just $199, specialists from Yes or No Genomics are ready – using special technology – to determine the presence of dangerous variations.

True, Yes or No Genomics is not a real company. This is a fake created by a geneticist from Stanford University, Stephen Montgomery. Montgomery hopes that the website he created will help people notice the amazing absurdity of many "scientific" genetic tests present on the market today. Promise to pay $199 Yes or No Genomics and you will know – for sure – that you have genetic variations, because everyone has them. And what kind of "special optical instrument" is used to determine this? It's just a kaleidoscope.

Montgomery is one of many scientists (their number is constantly growing) trying to fight the unrealistic promises of companies operating in the genetic market today. If you believe these promises, DNA decoding can give answers to absolutely any questions, from what kind of wine you like to what diseases you have increased risk of developing. The degree of absurdity varies significantly from test to test. There are even samples on the market that promise to "improve a child's ability to play football" with the help of a personalized genetically based training regime.

Advertising one of the pseudoscientific genetic tests,
promising to evaluate football abilities and help develop them.

If this is not obvious, then scientists still do not have a method at their disposal that allows them to decode DNA in such a way as to turn a sequence of nucleotides into an ideal plan for growing your seven-year-old son of a world football champion.

"Obviously, there are a huge number of companies trying to deceive people," Montgomery said in an interview with Gizmodo. –Sports, lifestyle recommendations, nutrition... companies come out and say: "We can look into your DNA and tell you what you should do." In reality, we are still trying to understand the basics of genetic architecture. We should help people to avoid the pseudo-genetic traps set."

In the context of the appearance of ridiculous "football-genetic" tests, Montgomery's fake website quickly gained viral popularity among those associated with genetic research. And Montgomery is not the only scientist who realized that pseudoscience must be fought not only on the pages of peer–reviewed journals.

For several years, Daniel MacArthur, a geneticist from the Broad Institute, has been running a blog dedicated, in particular, to demonstrating examples of bad science in relation to genetics. Like many other scientists, MacArthur now uses Twitter to draw attention to fake genetic tests. A geneticist from the University of California, Los Angeles also belongs to the "crusaders of Twitter" Leonid Kruglyak, Timothy Caufield, an expert on health policy, and Lior Pachter, a specialist in computational biology. With the advent of each new pseudoscientific DNA test, new voices join this chorus.

"Now is a great time to work in genetics. There's so much going on!  MacArthur shared with a Gizmodo correspondent. "But it also makes it possible for people who don't understand anything about genetics to easily enter the consumer market."

Many tests, according to MacArthur, are relatively harmless. Determining which kind of wine you are "genetically" predisposed to have a penchant for can only hurt your wallet. But there are already tests that are supposedly able to detect the presence of autism – it was such a "study" that MacArthur and his colleagues put up for discussion, discovering that the pseudoscientific test had already received a patent.

"We were sure that the variations being tested for had nothing to do with autism," the scientist explained. – Genetics has an aura of respectability, and people think that everything to which the word "genetic" is attached is scientifically justified and trustworthy. It is simply impossible to create a working genetic test to identify future football players. Scientists see it."

In 2008 in the edition The European Journal of Human Genetics published an article calling for stricter regulatory control of "custom" genetic tests. In the article, in particular, it was argued that "risk determination" using such tests from the point of view of science is not too much different from astrology.

In rare cases, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) comes into play. For example, in 2013 it ordered 23andMe to stop conducting tests for risk factors for the development of diseases until the accuracy of these tests is confirmed. After receiving FDA approval from 254 diseases, the risks of which 23andMe tests allegedly revealed, only a small part remained.

However, the FDA did not bother trying to control the work of small companies that give recommendations on the organization of the diet, skin care or preparation of a training program. Some of these companies are not accountable to the FDA at all, since their activities do not fall under the definition of "medical interventions".

"It's quite unpleasant to see that the FDA has engaged in 23andMe, and at the same time ignored small companies engaged in absolutely incorrect "scientific" activities," explains MacArthur. "I would like an organization like the Federal Trade Commission to step in and take on more responsibility."

In addition, MacArthur would like to see "scientific" data underlying marketing promises. If consumers could, for example, see that the recommendation to "drink apple juice" from DNA Lifestyle Coach is based on a study in which only 68 non-smoking men participated, then their attitude to the presumed validity of such a recommendation could change.

And Montgomery wonders how effective his parody will be. According to the creator of the "company" website Yes or No Genomics, good reviews have already been received. Now we need to understand how far the "pseudoscientific" joke will go.

Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru  24.07.2017