Before we can make good predictions we’ll need to know more than the DNA. We’ll need to know, and understand, their epigenetics, which is just now beginning to be studied and remains poorly understood, and quite possibly additional layers of complexity we haven’t even imagined yet. Life is incredibly complex and not easily simplified. Still, I expect we’ll find knowing just the DNA will be useful for a fair amount of things, just not as many as had been hoped.
Obviously ‘nurture’ plays a important role. The fact that identical twins can differ in height, weight and illnesses, even though they share the same DNA. The list can go on and on.
There's also LADA, latent autoimmune diabetes in adults, a type of Type 1 Diabetes, which the article says should, in theory at least, pick up as many as 75% of traditional Type 1 Diabetics.
FReepmail me if you want on or off the diabetes ping list.
Falls in the same category as examining a Linux installation disk and trying ti divine if it eill be susceptible to a worm, trojan or virus infection.
Good. Keep the curve balls coming, God.
No, you dumb mofus, I’m not anti-science.
The Lefties are PO’d - if they can’t predict problems, they have one less basis to murder even more babies.
Oh and for the record, is the slimes writer Gina the sister of Pina Kolota?
A few diseases are absolutely predicted by genetics, but in many cases, it is possible to find those defective genes without sequencing the entire genome. Huntington’s disease is one of those. But for most genetic diseases, we only know that a gene (or genes) are involved, but we still don’t know what triggers the disease.
Determining the role of environment vs. genetics will, no doubt, keep many researchers gainfully employed for decades to come.