CGS-authored
Kevin Davies sent a sample of his saliva to a genetic testing laboratory in Iceland to learn about his health risks. When he received his results, Mr. Davies learned that, based on his genetic makeup, he had an above-average risk of contracting prostate cancer.
Out of curiosity, he checked back three months later and found that the company, called deCODE, had changed its assessment: His risk was now below average.
DeCODE had recalculated its algorithm, based on new data. Davies, who is himself a geneticist by training, wasn't too surprised by this about-face: "The information that these companies can give you can change and evolve over time," he says.
That isn't the only way today's genetic tests offer slippery conclusions. According to a US government study, results often vary widely among genetic-testing companies, largely because each has its own way of choosing and analyzing data.
When the project to map human DNA was finally completed in 2003, many predicted a revolution. Drugs could be chosen to match individual patients with maximum therapeutic effect and minimum side effects, the advent of...
Out of curiosity, he checked back three months later and found that the company, called deCODE, had changed its assessment: His risk was now below average.
DeCODE had recalculated its algorithm, based on new data. Davies, who is himself a geneticist by training, wasn't too surprised by this about-face: "The information that these companies can give you can change and evolve over time," he says.
That isn't the only way today's genetic tests offer slippery conclusions. According to a US government study, results often vary widely among genetic-testing companies, largely because each has its own way of choosing and analyzing data.
When the project to map human DNA was finally completed in 2003, many predicted a revolution. Drugs could be chosen to match individual patients with maximum therapeutic effect and minimum side effects, the advent of...