The 23andMe Experience - A Lot of Knowledge is of Little Help?
By Alison Lashwood,
BioNews
| 02. 23. 2015
Untitled Document
The 23andMe test and other similar direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests are likely here to stay. Those in favour see them as a way of engaging the public with science and making it fun, but there are problematic aspects, too. The issue of interpretation of the results is perhaps of greatest concern.
In BioNews 788, Professor Joyce Harper highlights some of the issues that the general public need to be aware of should they undertake such testing.
Read more...
Related Articles
By Darren Incorvaia, Fierce Biotech | 07.16.2026
Jennifer Doudna, Ph.D., the Nobel Laureate best known for co-inventing the CRISPR system that has become the foundation for gene editing, is dipping her toes into a new, buzzy field: AI-powered protein design.
In a new paper, published today...
By Risa Cromer, The Conversation | 07.17.2026
By Emily Packard Dawson and Lainie Friedman Ross , The Hastings Center for Bioethics | 07.16.2026
Major news outlets recently reported – based on a bioRxiv preprint – that scientists had edited genes in human embryos with “startling precision.” The scientists’ decision to release this work ahead of peer review, coupled with the extensive media coverage...
Media coverage of recent developments in embryo gene editing might seem to suggest that gene-edited babies are close to becoming a reality. As tech billionaires eager to profit off of techno-eugenics invest in “designer baby” technologies, attempts to normalize heritable genome editing – which remains unsafe and raises significant ethical and societal concerns – are especially dangerous. It’s worth taking a closer look at these developments and what they mean, in a way that pushes back on narratives normalizing the...
