The Dirty Secret of Genetic Testing: We're Still Not Sure What "Normal" Looks Like
By Sean Captain,
Fast Company
| 03. 04. 2016
Untitled Document
Getting a full readout of your entire genetic sequence promises to radically alter how we monitor our health, providing advanced warning of cancer and other diseases we may suffer and our chances of passing on those ailments. Clinical genetic testing firm Illumina is valued at nearly $23 billion, for example, while direct-to-consumer offering 23andMe is at about $1 billion. Meanwhile, the price for so-called whole genome sequencing has dropped to about $1,000.
But such whole-genome sequencing currently over-promises in several ways. One of them is a false sense of what constitutes a "normal" genome with which to compare someone's results. (The U.S. government's National Institutes of Health provides a narrow, widely used model.) The promise is best if you're white, and drops off fast for other ethnicities, like people of African origin. That’s because we simply don't have easy access to enough reference genomes, from a big enough variety of people, to understand the range of normal. Nor is there much willingness for companies that analyze genomes to look at all the varieties that are out there...
Related Articles
By Arthur Lazarus, MedPage Today | 01.23.2026
A growing body of contemporary research and reporting exposes how old ideas can find new life when repurposed within modern systems of medicine, technology, and public policy. Over the last decade, several trends have converged:
- The rise of polygenic scoring...
By Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience | 01.15.2026
Genetic variants believed to cause blindness in nearly everyone who carries them actually lead to vision loss less than 30% of the time, new research finds.
The study challenges the concept of Mendelian diseases, or diseases and disorders attributed to...
By David Cox, Wired | 01.05.2026
As he addressed an audience of virologists from China, Australia, and Singapore at October’s Pandemic Research Alliance Symposium, Wei Zhao introduced an eye-catching idea.
The gene-editing technology Crispr is best known for delivering groundbreaking new therapies for rare diseases, tweaking...
By Josie Ensor, The Times | 12.09.2025
A fertility start-up that promises to screen embryos to give would-be parents their “best baby” has come under fire for a “misuse of science”.
Nucleus Genomics describes its mission as “IVF for genetic optimisation”, offering advanced embryo testing that allows...