News Items

This New York Times article describes the "chic" trend in at-home custom genome scans. For $399 and a little spit, the California-based company 23 and me will survey your genes, providing you a long list of supposed health predispositions and risks, in addition to genetic information about "...food preferences, eye color, athletic ability and other traits."

The prospect of being able to peek at your genes and perhaps learn a little something about your inner workings is admittedly enticing. But there are some real concerns with the type of broad-scale genetic testing that companies like 23 and me offer - concerns that the companies don't exactly address up front. First off, there's real uncertainty over whether the results you receive are "clinically valid." That is, whether the tests actually tell you what they are supposed to tell you. Many of the so-called links between genes and diseases have not been fully worked out yet. What researchers have learned thus far is that common diseases like diabetes and heart disease are caused by a genetic predisposition and important non-genetic factors: the kinds of food you eat, the amount you exercise, and the lifestyle you live. There's also the issue of test usefulness - would it really make a difference to you if you found out that your genes put you at a 4% increased risk of diabetes?  The much, much bigger risk is not eating healthy and lying around on the couch.

This is not to say that genes can't make make powerful predictions about risk for disease.  In some cases the answer is certainly yes.  But we are in the very early stages of figuring out how genes and our environment - together - shape our health. One needs to be on guard for companies looking to make a buck off of otherwise healthy people's genetic curiosity.

There are other concerns as well - how will you receive news about a potentially life-threatening condition?  Will you be falsely reassured if you are overweight but do not carry the "diabetes genes?" Was the test accurate?  Could the results impact my life insurance policy?  Will my family members view me differently?

And about that alleged genetic test for athletic ability? Hmmm.  I'd love to see the scientific data on that one.

Some have suggested that Michael Phelps' Olympic success is due in significant part to his anatomy - that a long wingspan and unusual flexibility in his ankles give him that extra edge over the competition. 

But as Scientific American reports in an interview with a sports medicine physician, Phelps is not "freakishly" outside the norm in any bodily measure.  While it is true that being tall (basketball), petite (gymnastics), or having 20/12 vision (baseball), confers an advantage, it is more often hard work and training that differentiates the very good from the very best.

Imagine an area the size of Massachusetts in the Gulf of Mexico that is completely devoid of marine life. This so-called "dead zone" develops each spring, driven by fertilizer runoff from the Mississippi river basin that empties into the Gulf.  Given that ~50% of the nation's farmland empties into the Mississippi, it's easy to see that we're talking about a LOT of fertilizer.

Fertilizer contains high concentrations of nitrogen, an element that is normally "limiting" in a marine environment. Adding additional nitrogen to the water leads to explosive growth of algae.  When the algae die, their decomposition uses up large amounts of oxygen. This depletes the water of dissolved oxygen, on which organisms like fish and shellfish depend. They must either move to different waters, or perish.

There is also the issue of harmful algal blooms, in which the algae produce neurotoxins that kill fish, dolphins, and other marine life.  If the toxins build up in fish or shellfish, then other organisms such as birds and even humans may get sick.

The obvious solution is to drastically reduce fertilizer usage, but this is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Other tricks are being explored for "capturing" phosphorus and nitrogen, including building wastewater treatment plants that use algae to remove these elements (e.g. growing algae in a controlled environment).  The algae would then be used as biomass to produce biofuels.  But could this be done on a large enough scale?

In a speech yesterday, 2007 Nobel Laureate and former Vice President Al Gore called for a national effort to convert our electricity production from oil-based sources to renewable sources like wind, solar, and biofuels.

"Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years. This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans – in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen."

Can it be done?  Monetarily, he claims that it will cost between $1.5 and $3 trillion - an amount that he says the United States will need to invest in new power plants anyway, just to meet the burgeoning demand for electricity. Scientifically, he points out that enough sunlight falls on the earth every hour which, if harnessed, could meet our energy needs for a year. The trick, of course, is harnessing the energy in an economically viable way.

A PDF transcript of his speech can be found here.

Developing new approaches for solar energy is a major focus of researchers at Northwestern and Argonne National Labs, through the ANSER project. Read a summary of the project.