The last year has seen a tremendous proliferation of blogs on genes and genetics. They have been aggregated at The DNA Network, here at Nature Network and at PostGenomic. They are reviewed daily by Genome Technology Online, and can be organized at sites like scintilla and technorati.

What is this all for? One important role was illustrated by Jonathan Eisen’s post about the paper by Werren et al. (Widespread lateral gene transfer …) on the presence of Wolbachia DNA in host nuclear genomes. He gave “Adaptationomics Award #1” to the press release (not the paper), and the ensuing discussion on his blog, which included the authors of the paper, showed how scientist bloggers can provide a useful role by correcting the hype and confusion that often attends widely covered science news stories.

That role may become increasingly important as personal genomics develops. The excellent commentary in this week’s Nature by Steven E. Brenner (Common Sense for Our Genomes) makes some very important points. Even Jim Watson and Craig Venter don’t know how to make sense of their own genomes and the medical establishment has failed to make use of what they do know. “Given that most common drug prescriptions don’t even consider a patient’s weight, it is unclear how many future therapies will depend on the minutiae of our genomic make-up,” Brenner says. He then mentions an FDA-approved microarray test for P450 variants, one that determines how rapidly individuals metabolize various drugs, that is almost never used. In the same issue of Nature, a news article discusses the costs and regulatory barriers that are slowing the adoption of biomarkers for the initial signs of disease (“Missing the Mark: … with little financial incentives to get the tests on the shelves, the idea is floundering.”)

It is the patient who has an incentive to learn all that he can. Although many people don’t want to know what’s in their genes (usually in the mistaken belief that there is little they can do about it), I do, and I’m not alone. We see a world coming where information about susceptibility to disease, potential for health or accomplishment and responsiveness to therapies is routinely found in our genes. If that world won’t get here because of economic incentives, it may nevertheless arrive because people demand it. Brenner proposes a Genome Commons, and states that “the incredible difficulty of integrating and interpreting multiple variants in an individual, each associated with a given trait … requires a resource like the Genome Commons and workable Navigators as prerequisites.” I like that vision of the future, but a lot about it remains very cloudy. Most people are not going to be able to use such a resource. Genetic counseling may morph into a profession that serves everyone, not just those who faced with clear cases of genetic disease. In a world where we all have a personal genetic adviser, who will license them? I believe strongly in the free exchange of information, but there will certainly be people who need to stopped, people with a test and a cure for whatever the public is most afraid of. Certainly, most people, and their doctors, and their genetic advisers, will continue to use the internet. Scientists who blog have a role to play.