ASHG: Wake-up call
Sorry about the rocky start, folks - but I'm not the only one having trouble out of the starting gate! This morning, the geneticists got their own cold water in the face at a session on diabetes and obesity.
There the geneticists were, happily sharing their data - none of which is totally overwhelming. It's not that they're not finding anything - there are clearly some genes that have *something* to do with fat, and with diabetes. But - statistically - none of these genes explains more than a small part of the problem. And people are just beginning to understand how such genes work to cause these ailments.
Well, apparently this just isn't good enough. Midway through the session, during a break, a fellow in the audience got up, strode to the mike, and declared, "I'm not a geneticist, but frankly, I'm disappointed!"
It turned out the fellow, David Baylink, is an endocrinologist who traveled here all the way from Loma Linda, California to find out what the geneticists are learning about diseases like diabetes. And, apparently, Baylink wasn't impressed. He chastised the scientists for wasting money on methods that - he claimed - aren't delivering good results.
The geneticists are used to hearing these complaints: "You mean, we've got the human genome, and the HapMap, and there still isn't a sure-fire cure for fat, or heart disease, or depression? Wasn't that the whole point of spending all that taxpayer money on this research?" Geneticists spend lots of their time trying to answer questions like this - from funding agencies, the Congress, and random people on the bus.
But it's rare for an outsider to invade the hallowed halls of a meeting and confront scientists about whether their work is really worthwile. Over the next few days, we'll see how the geneticists answer these concerns.