I am getting slightly worn out by all this talk of impending economic doom. Every morning for the last month, the front page of my Wall Street Journal has shouted out a thick red line plummeting toward the x-axis. The news won’t shut up about it. My friends in finance are telling me the sky is falling and this is just the beginning. I am freaked out and uneasy and there is nothing I can done about it except turn off the TV, radio, and my computer (and we all know that last part is never going to happen).
There is, however, a runner up to this media frenzy. A second place finisher that is making me grind my teeth just a little. Second place in the news these days goes to the many variations of the Personal Genome Project, an initiative to fully sequence and reveal the genomes of select individuals, in hopes of extending the project to 100,000 people. This project has been covered on NN, in the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and now, oddly and excellently, in this month’s issue of GQ. I can’t seem to get away from the genomes! I may scream from genome overload in the very near future.
Thankfully, the GQ article is better than most. Written by Richard Powers, himself recently ‘sequenced,’ the article covers the multitude of firms offering their DNA sequencing services and how they differ. Powers enumerates the privacy risks inherent in sequencing one’s genome, such as being turned down by insurance companies, employers, or disclosing sensitive information about your relatives. He talks about his own hesitations in learning what his own genetic code holds. He approaches sequencing not only from a uniquely human angle (whereas most articles only speak of the grand scientific advances and benefits to humanity in our collective future) but he also presents the science behind the sequencing hysteria.
That’s what sets him apart. He describes DNA, the genome, and sequencing technology without condescension and without much hype (“This will change the world! Test your significant other for the infidelity gene! Test your Mom for what she will buy you for your birthday!!” I think not). Powers uses his experience as a platform for education and outreach, to explain and teach the basics of human genetics to the readership of GQ (which is more varied than one might assume – the fact that I subscribe is case and point), and for that I salute him.
There is great public interest in DNA sequencing and genetics as a whole. This is a prime opportunity to make science look cool and necessary, especially in a time of economic crisis when governmental bodies are exceedingly tempted to pull money away from things not considered 100% required. Science is required, it is important. GQ told me so. It told a whole lot of other people too. Good for GQ.
When another magazine I read folded, I accidently found myself with a GQ subscription. The first month surprised me with a great critique of Robert DeNiro and each month has surprised me with at least one worthwhile article. Good to know this issue won’t disappoint.
I found the GQ article interesting (and a great way to help kill a rather slow Friday afternoon at work!). I’ve been trying to think about whether I would want to do something like that if it became affordable, and I’m still not sure. Knowing about something I may be predisposed to developing that could potentially be prevented or controlled sounds useful, but finding out about something that has no treatment could be scary. I do think that some really revolutionary medical treatments could be developed from these efforts. In particular, the ability to target medications more effectively to individual patients sounds very plausible and useful.
For me the scariest part about the financial mess is that 10 different ecomists will tell you you 10 different things about what should be done to fix it. I guess that’s why they call it the “dismal science”? :)