Dan MacArthur at Genetic Future has the details. Some of the stuff coming out of genomics reminds me a lot of what you see with social science; lots of sexy studies which turn out not to be as significant upon later analysis. Perhaps hypotheses are overrated?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
A recent paper in Nature Biotechnology reported the first complete human genome to be sequenced using third-generation, single-molecule sequencing technology. The genome sequenced belongs to one Stephen Quake, co-founder of the biotech company Helicos that developed the Heliscope instrument used…
I notice that Fortune has a story on personal genomics up, Genetic sequencing gets personal Biotech firm Illumina will sequence your entire genetic code -- and throw in a Mac -- for $48,000:
So far, personalized genomics make up just a small fraction of Illumina's revenue. High costs keep…
The buzz leading up to this week's Consumer Genetics Show in Boston suggested that a major announcement would be made by the CEO of genomics technology provider Illumina, Jay Flatley. Illumina provides the most popular second-generation sequencing instrument currently on the market, the Genome…
This little USB drive represents the current pinnacle of luxury personal genomics. It's the product of Knome (pronounced "know me"), a Cambridge, MA-based biotech start-up fronted by genomics pioneer George Church (recently profiled in Wired). In return for $350,000, Knome's customers receive a…
Perhaps hypotheses are overrated?
Well, some of the people doing genome scans would argue that they're going in without any hypothesis at all.
Of course, the hypothesis they're implicitly testing is that common diseases are caused by common variants that can be tagged with a SNP chip; as it turns out, this hypothesis is largely wrong.
Of course, the hypothesis they're implicitly testing is that common diseases are caused by common variants that can be tagged with a SNP chip; as it turns out, this hypothesis is largely wrong
How do you know they are wrong?