The recent Government Accountability Office report into the direct-to-consumer genetic testing industry certainly made a splash: it took centre stage at a Congressional hearing on the industry, and garnered media headlines about "bogus" results being generated by testing companies.
As I noted at the time of its release, the report is an obscenely one-sided affair: it's transparently framed as an attack piece rather than a balanced analysis of the state of the industry. That's a real shame, because the information collected by the GAO could so easily have been used to provide valuable insight into the industry, and to guide careful regulation that addresses the deficiencies of current tests without punishing innovators.
Over at Genomes Unzipped I have a post up with Luke Jostins and Kate Morley pointing out just how much of a tragically missed opportunity the GAO report represents: for a project that cost US tax-payers $30,000 in testing kits alone, it fails to capitalise on any of the data it collected or the expertise it consulted, and instead resorts to grand-standing and vitriol.
Over the next couple of weeks we'll be seeing what we can do to get access to the full transcripts and data used by the GAO for their report. To find out how that goes, keep an eye on Genomes Unzipped.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
So, in some quarters, there's been wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Congressional hearings about the direct-to-customer ('DTC') genetic testing industry. I've discussed why I don't think regulation is a disaster before, but I'll add one more issue to the mix: maintaining subject…
Back in June I launched a new blog, Genomes Unzipped, together with a group of colleagues and friends with expertise in various areas of genetics. At the time I made a rather cryptic comment about "planning much bigger things for the site over the next few months".
Today I announced what I meant…
USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack seems determined to implement a new poultry slaughter inspection system, despite strong calls from the food safety and public health communities for him to withdraw it. At an April 17 congressional hearing before the House Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture,…
As part of his Gene Week celebration over at Forbes, Matthew Herper has a provocative post titled "Why you can't have your $1000 genome". In this post I'll explain why, while Herper's pessimism is absolutely justified for genomes produced in a medical setting, I'm confident that I'll be obtaining…