dNATE.com

Genetic diseases

A startling recent discovery has overturned much of what we know about disease.  As usual, Nicholas Wade in the New York Times sums it up well:

• Until [recently,] researchers have looked only at common mutations as possible contributors to the risk of common diseases. [However] common variants have turned out to explain only a fraction of the genetic risk of common disease. 
• It now appears that large numbers of very rare genetic mutations may underlie common human diseases like schizophrenia and cancer.

What's it all mean?  Certainly it will be difficult to map every single DNA unit to a disease, as there are 3 billion DNA units in each person, and "only" 7 billion people in the world.  Everyone will have a different response to drugs, with no simple genetic test.

Nicholas Wade goes on:

• A rare variant occurs in one out of every 17 DNA units, of which the human genome has some three billion.  313 genes out of the 25,000 in the human genome carry rare mutations.
• Detecting the roots of common disease will [now] prove much more difficult. Mutations with small effect must be studied in large numbers of patients to be detectable ... raising doubts as to how soon genome sequencing will become a routine medical test. 
• Rare mutations [may be] specific to particular populations, with Africans and Europeans having sets that do not overlap much. This means that medical knowledge about rare mutations may have to be developed independently for each population. 

Age of Innocence

Study after study shows that success is in the genes.  The latest was published in the Journal for Personality:

Genes to play a much bigger role than lifestyle, with self-control particularly etched into our DNA. Our genes also largely determine how determined and persistent we are.  This is important in terms of success, as someone who refuses to give up is more likely to achieve their dreams than someone who throws in the towel.

Still, there are many deniers out there, especially genetically elite meritocrats:

To suggest that “success” is genetically determined assumes that “success” can somehow be defined outside of our cultural frames. While I feel that my American Studies PhD should constitute a sign of “success,” others would define “success” more narrowly – say, making a lot of money as a CEO or corporate lawyer. Now, I’ll certainly be the first to argue that one’s success in life isn’t all about hard work and determination. It’s also about socially defined privileges. ... Perhaps I just don’t want to admit that my accomplishments were hard-wired into my biology. But more likely, the “success gene” simply represents another gene of the week. 

David Brooks proclaims it the Age of Innocence, but I would call it the Age of Denial.  We've seen the collapse of No Child Left Behind, but many commentators continue to bury their head in the sand.  The most sinister are meritocrats like David Frum who fear their position atop society is at risk, and will do anything to defend the status quo.