Happyhour Gene Determines Sensitivity to Alcohol

From NewScientist:

A newly identified gene called happyhour makes fruit flies sensitive to booze. Drugs that mimic the effects of the gene may offer a new treatment against alcohol abuse, researchers say. Read more...

Like Loud Misic, Scared of Going Deaf - Fear No More

From SciAm.com:

Anti-Loudness Protein

Fans of club music and rock concerts who like the volume cranked up to 11 but want to save their hearing might someday pop a pill rather than plugging their ears. Scientists have pinpointed the biochemical mechanism in ears that works to limit damaging effects of loud sound. When a noise registers in the brain as too loud, the protein nAChR, located on sensory hair cells in the inner ear, kicks in to limit the ability of the hair cells to respond. Mice genetically altered to produce a more potent nAChR could not hear soft sounds, and they suffered less permanent damage to their hearing when scientists blasted 100-decibel noise at their ears. "We know some drugs can modify the protein," says Paul Fuchs of Johns Hopkins University, who published the findings in the January 20 PLoS Biology. "But we need to know more about specific amounts" before a sound-protecting drug can be made. So don't toss the earplugs yet.
--Kate Wilcox

Anatomically Normal Girl with Y Chromosome

This is quite amazing and could prove to be a significant finding for the field of developmental biology, and it might not have been discovered if it weren't for prenatal genetic screens. Check it out (from NewScientist):

A seven-year-old girl with a Y chromosome is providing new clues about a possible "master switch" of maleness.

The girl has the normal chromosome count – 46 – and should be male. Other children who have the male sex chromosome but do not appear to be boys have been found to have gene mutations that temper the Y chromosome's effects. However this child doesn't have ambiguous gonads, shrivelled testes or other developmental defects. She instead has a normal vagina, cervix and set of ovaries.

A team led by Anna Biason-Lauber, of University Children's Hospital in Zurich, Switzerland, thinks the patient's normalcy is due to mutations in a poorly understood gene on chromosome 17 called CBX2.

The child's unique condition might not have been discovered were it not for tests performed before birth to check for major genetic defects, such as an extra copy of chromosome 21 that causes Down's syndrome. Those tests came up negative and indicated the child would be a boy.

Read more...

"Do Parents Matter?"

Sorry Mom and Dad, but I didn't say it. From SciAm.com:

Do Parents Matter?
A researcher argues that peers are much more important than parents, that psychologists underestimate the power of genetics and that we have a lot to learn from Asian classrooms.

In 1998 Judith Rich Harris, an independent researcher and textbook author, published The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out The Way They Do. The book provocatively argued that parents matter much less, at least when it comes to determining the behavior of their children, than is typically assumed. Instead, Harris argued that a child’s peer group is far more important. The Nurture Assumption has recently been reissued in an expanded and revised form. Mind Matters editor Jonah Lehrer chats with Harris about her critics, the evolution of her ideas and why teachers can be more important than parents.

If you have any interest in the nature/nurture debate, I suggest that you read the interview...

Viral Batteries

From NewScientist:

GENETICALLY engineered viruses that assemble into electrodes have been used to make complete miniature rechargeable batteries for the first time. The new lithium ion batteries are as powerful as existing devices but smaller and cleaner to make, claim the team behind the work. The technology could improve the performance of hybrid electric cars and electronic gadgets. Read more...

Robot Makes Publishable Discovery in Genetics

From NewScientist:

Gene Linked to Motor Skill Acquisition

Entire article from SciAm.com:

Scientists know that small variations in certain genes can predispose people to cancers or heart disease. Now researchers are starting to show a direct, quantifiable effect on learning traceable to these types of genetic influences: single-nucleotide polymorphisms. A difference in just one amino acid in a protein might explain why some people learn new motor skills faster and reach higher levels of performance.

The protein, called brain-derived neurotro­phic factor (BDNF), is a key driver of synaptic plasti­city, the ability of the connections between brain cells to change in strength. This plasticity is an important factor in learning, explains neurologist Janine Reis, who led the study at the National Institutes of Health. According to Reis, this finding offers the first evidence that slight variations in BDNF’s structure affect learning ability.

Volunteers with one type of BDNF learned faster and performed better at a task in which they had to grip a handle more or less tightly to move a computer cursor through a sequence of targets. Those with a different variant never reached the skill level acquired by the faster learners. (The researchers excluded people who play video games.)

Other groups have found that the BDNF version that Reis linked with poorer acquisition of skills is associated with reduced function of the hippocampus, a brain region involved in motor learning.

This difference in BDNF may be a clue as to why certain people excel at athletic perfor­mance, Reis says, or it may help predict how well patients will recover motor skills after a stroke. Her team and others are gearing up to look at gene variants in stroke patients, hoping to find new targets for drug therapy.

"Genome Hacking"

We have officially reached Gattaca status - well, not exactly - but according to an article from NewScientist.com, we're not far (if you haven't seen Gattaca, and therefore have no idea what I'm talking about, you need to watch it - not just to understand this reference, but because it is unusually accurate, and at the very least insightful - if not prophetic).

What I mean is this: similar to the film, it is now possible to 'hack' another's genome. This highlights a major issue regarding the blossoming field of personal genomics: the right to privacy (other pertinent issues are also discussed in the article - including the accuracy and reliability of info provided by different companies). Check it out:

INTIMATE secrets hidden in your DNA could be stolen without you even realising. By taking a glass from which you have drunk, a "genome hacker" could obtain a comprehensive scan of your genome, revealing DNA variants that help determine your susceptibility to a wide range of diseases, from a common form of blindness to Alzheimer's disease.

That's the disturbing finding of a New Scientist investigation, in which one of us - Michael Reilly - "hacked" the genome of the other - Peter Aldhous - armed with only a credit card, a private email account and a home address.

You might have thought that genome hacking requires specialist skills, and personal access to sophisticated equipment. But in recent years, some companies have started to offer personal genome scans to the public over the internet. Other firms routinely analyse genomes on behalf of scientists involved in human genetics research. In theory, both types of service are vulnerable to abuse by a genome hacker determined to submit someone else's DNA for covert analysis.

Until our investigation, it was not clear whether this would be possible in practice. Could a hacker with no access to a genetics lab take an item carrying another person's DNA and obtain a sample that companies would accept for scanning? Would the sample be of high enough quality to yield accurate results? And would genome analysis companies have procedures in place to identify and refuse suspicious orders?

We decided to find out. Rather like computer security researchers who expose vulnerabilities in software code so that they can be "patched" to guard against malicious hackers, our goal was to uncover vulnerabilities in the way companies offering genome scans operate, so that they can be fixed.

Our investigation uncovered some loopholes that might be closed to help thwart genome thieves. The findings also strengthen the case for additional laws to protect the information contained in the DNA that we all shed continually and leave lying around.

"Just as we have a right to expect that relatives, neighbours, or even strangers can't poke through our medical records without our permission, we should have a right to expect that people can't snoop through our genes," says Kathy Hudson, who heads the Genetics and Public Policy Center in Washington DC. Read more...

Beyond piracy, there is, perhaps, a more pertinent question that will soon require an answer: who is legally entitled to your genetic information - your spouse? your kids? siblings?

When I first contemplated the question, my initial impulse was that no one should be legally entitled to my genome. However, upon further contemplation, my answer changed. Why? Well, considering that you share half of your genes with your children, siblings, and parents - is it not their right to know if you discover that you are at high risk for a certain disease (implying that they too may have a similar risk)? My suggestion would be some kind of middle ground, where relatives would have access only to information about genes that could have potential implications for them as well.

It is an intriguing question to which there is not necessarily a "right" answer. None the less, it is a question that will need to be answered (and probably sooner than you think).

Are You Genetically Predisposed to Being Mugged?

I have talked a little in the past about the interactions between genes and the environment (see Can Your Genes Tell You Who You Are? or Unnatural Selection), and here is a great post on a similar subject discussing heritability of personality traits that may cause us to seek a particular environment over another.

I think this is extremely interesting. I mean, I was aware that some people have a predisposition to violence, but had never thought about predisposition to being a victim of violence - but now that I have, it really does make some sense (From The Wild Side):

Last Monday, Nicholas Hughes, son of poets Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath, killed himself. His mother was one of the world’s most famous suicides, and news stories have mentioned the tendency of suicide and depression to run in families. But this tragic inheritance is just part of a more complex story in which our lives are shaped by genes, environment — and unexpected connections between the two.

Much more than depression is partly inherited. Here’s a weirder fact: the genes you get from your parents partly determine your risk of being mugged. So do genes dictate our fate? Of course not — but they do have a say in who we become.

We tend to think of the environment as something that just happens to us, but in fact animals actively seek out surroundings that are compatible with their genetic predispositions. Teenagers in the chess club choose to be exposed to different influences from their hockey-player counterparts. Such differences don’t even have to be voluntary: tall kids may be picked more often for the basketball team and end up better at the game because they have more opportunities to develop their skills.

Certain people are much more likely than others to be exposed to stressful life experiences, including specific traumas like car accidents, industrial injuries or being a crime victim. Some of this variation is traceable to genetics. Read more...

An aside for those of you in Comm 3600:

In class today we discussed this quote from Michel Foucault:

...(T)he body is also directly involved in a political field; power relations have an immediate hold upon it; they invest it, mark it, train it, torture it, force it to carry out tasks, to perform ceremonies, to emit signs.

While professor Joseph was likely trying to invoke discussion regarding the influence of culture/environment on our biology (diet, etc.) - this post illustrates that not only does our environment influence our biology, but that our genetics can influence our environment.

So it goes something like this: the environment (culture, economic class, etc.) into which we are born has influence on our biology, but at a certain age we have the opportunity to decide our environment (at least somewhat) - and the environment we choose is predisposed by our genetics.

Next-Gen Bloodtests Will Read DNA

From SciAm.com:

DNA on the Loose: Next-Gen Blood Tests Tap Free-Floating Genetic Material:
Tests using floating nucleic acids could diagnose disease, monitor pregnancy and weed out "mad" cows

Free-floating messages in the bloodstream could soon provide a unique window into the body. Researchers worldwide are racing to decipher circulating genetic material for better ways to diagnose disease, monitor pregnancy, and even improve food safety.

Circulating DNA and RNA—temporary gene copies that act as blueprints for protein production—was first discovered in 1948. Researchers still do not fully understand how the free-floating genetic fragments (chemically referred to as nucleic acids) survive outside the protective barriers of cells, but recent technological advances now allow scientists to comb through these tiny messages for clues about human health.

Traditional genetic screens, such as paternity tests and criminal profiling, utilize the abundant DNA stored in the nuclei of circulating blood cells. Although these tests shed light on a person's genetic inheritance, they do not provide insights on the current health of specific tissues and organs—information that could potentially be gleaned from the free nucleic acids. Read more...

The Power Of Genetic Engineering

A must see...talking about the production of biofuels as well as antibiotics:

Regulatin' Genes

This is too funny not to post (although it may be over your head if you know nothing about genetics):

Stem Cell Research Back on Track

In 2001, Bush signed an executive order limiting the use of federal resources for stem cell research to existing lines of stem cells. In other words, no new stem cells could be created, and no research could be done on new lines created by private labs, using federal money or equipment. This severely limited research over the past eight years, as experts agree that the existing lines are inferior to new lines made with new and improved techniques and equipment.

In 2006, the Senate passed a bill that would have lifted the ban on stem cell research, but it was vetoed by Bush the next day. Apparently, Bush didn't understand what most Americans do - that these stem cells are being taken from fertility clinics, where the fertilized eggs are produced in excess in petri dishes, and that most end up being thrown away. The choice is simple for most, when choosing between throwing them away or using them for research that could lead to cures for such diseases as diabetes, heart disease, Parkinsons, and many, many more.

Well, on Monday Obama will finally lift the ban, and allow for federally supported research on new lines. It's about time.

Getting Old

So today I turned 26 years old - and I don't like it one bit (although, fortunately I still look better than that guy). I have reached the point in my life where there doesn't seem to be any advantage to getting older - I can already drive, buy cigarettes, buy liquor, and rent a car (and the novelty of these things has long since faded) - my age is no longer a limit to what I can or can't do. It's not that I don't like the idea of being 26 necessarily, but it gets me thinking about being 30 - and I don't like the idea of being 30, because then you're way to close to 40 - and 40 is old! (this is how my brain works)

I guess I kind of see 25 or 26 as "over the hill" of youth - it's all downhill (maybe that's not the right word, I'm not implying it will be easy) toward being an adult from here. There is also the fact that I am still at least a year away from graduate school, meaning I probably won't finish graduate school until I am 30 - and if I decide to get my PhD...good god I will be old! Then again, maybe the worry is all for nothing - I think I'm just going to count on the rapid advances in genetics to find a cure for aging, then age will be meaningless!

Chew on This

Do you hate the dentist? - well their days may be numbered. Identification of a gene responsible for the production of tooth enamel might eliminate the need for fillings or dentures. OK - so this doesn't mean that there won't be any more dentists, but painful fillings and oral surgery could become a thing of the past (as well as dentures, at least as we know them today).

Researchers at Oregon University recently discovered a new function for a known gene, Ctip2, previously identified as a factor in immune responses and skin and nerve development. The new research shows that Ctip2 also plays a role in the production of tooth enamel. Mice engineered to lack Ctip2 can only form soft, rudimentary teeth, lack- ing a tough enamel coating.

Researchers believe a better understanding of the gene may lead to the repair of damaged enamel and tooth restoration, and even the production of "real" replacement teeth. Previous work has enabled the production of the soft, inner portions of teeth (using stem cells), but until now, researchers lacked knowledge of the genetic factors responsible for enamel production. Also of significance, researchers can now begin to study the process(es) involved in the production of enamel, one of the strongest coatings found in nature, knowledge of which may lead to the development of new synthetic compounds.

The Genetics of Beauty

Although the findings are still not officially published, researchers have identified six genes they believe may have significant effects on facial features. Exactly how much each gene influences any particular feature wasn't revealed, but the tentative results lead to speculation as to how this information might be used. Some potential applications noted in the article on the GenomeWeb Daily News website include:

-use in forensics - for example, to create a sketch of a criminal no one has seen based entirely on DNA
-and obviously in a pre-natal context, to have a computer predict what your child will look like based on DNA (although I don't see the point - I mean, what if you find out it's going to be ugly, you're not all of the sudden going to have an abortion - or at least I hope not!)

Anyway, just some more interesting ways genetics may change your life.

Steven Pinker On The Colbert Report

Below find two interviews with the author of The Stuff Of Thought and an essay, "My Genome, My Self," that I blogged about recently (Click HERE or picture above to link to post). You should definitely check them out, both hilarious and informative.

Am I really that naive?

I would like to think that I am not a naive person, but maybe I am. I went to one of the best public high schools in the country, and for some reason I believed my teachers were above just skipping over unpleasant parts of US history - but apparently I was wrong. All I remember being taught about the 1920-1940’s in the US is regarding the huge wave of immigration, industrialization, prohibition, the start of the feminist movement, and I’m sure some more or less significant stuff – but what was blatantly omitted was US involvement in the eugenics movement (Nazi Germany sure got its fair coverage). Furthermore, as a genetics major at Cornell, you would think eugenics would have come up as an example of a misuse of genetics in at least one of my classes, but surprisingly it has not.


In case you don’t know, eugenics is the social philosophy that genetic principles can be used for the improvement of human populations (see poster/advertisement above). Although eugenics is most often associated with Nazi Germany and the holocaust, few people talk about the more than 60,000 people that were forcibly sterilized in the US between 1920-1940 - because they were carriers of supposed genes for traits such as “pauperism” and “feeblemindedness.” Similar numbers were sterilized in Canada and Sweden, and sterilization programs continued into the 1970’s in all three countries. The movement was so popular in the US that state fairs during the period often had eugenics exhibits in which families could undergo eugenic evaluation for the “fittest family” competition, held in the “human stock” sections.

How could such an atrocity have been ignored in all my high school history classes. It was possibly the worst case of mass discrimination in US history, and something that we all can, and should, learn from. And if you think eugenics is a problem of the past, you’re wrong. As recently as 1995, China passed a law requiring that couples with unspecified genetic diseases “considered to be inappropriate for childbearing” can get married only if both agree to practice long-term contraception or to be sterilized. Absolutely ridiculous, and a perfect example of why we all need to be taught the history of eugenics - so we can try to avoid repeating such a regrettable period in history.

SOURCES
Kelves (1999) Eugenics and human rights. BMJ 319:435–438
Beardsley (1997) China Syndrome Sci Am. 276:33-34

"Unnatural" Selection

Article Review: The Future of Man - by Peter Ward

It is hard to argue against the fact that so-called “natural” selection has at least significantly slowed, if not come close to a complete halt. All one has to do is look at infant mortality rates today compared to even a few generations ago, let alone a few hundred years ago. Today, people with genetic disorders and/or weak immune systems due to heritable factors, can live to maturity - giving them essentially the same odds of reproducing as individuals with superior genes. Furthermore, another “natural” force driving evolutionary change in "natural populations – adaptations to different geographical environments, or niches – has been effectively negated by recent inventions, i.e. planes, trains, and automobiles. The reason increased mobility negatively effects the rate and quantity of change is that for rare adaptations - such as those that arise in small populations as a result of a niche environment - to persist and become prominent, there must be reproductive isolation. Otherwise, genes that are beneficial only in a niche environment will be diluted out by more prominent genes from immigrants, or lost due to migration of individuals who inherit said genes. In other words, THE DAYS OF “NATURAL” FORCES/PREDATORS SHAPING OUR EVOLUTION ARE ESSENTIALLY OVER.

The article (click the picture, title of the post, or here for the link) discusses the forces driving human evolution today, and some of the possible outcomes. What Ward claims, and I agree, is that THE STRONGEST DRIVING FORCE IN OUR EVOLUTION TODAY IS CULTURE. Meaning the strongest factor affecting what evolutionary biologists define as “fitness” – or the ability to reproduce – is the ability to “fit in.” This doesn’t necessarily mean being cool, but rather being able to find your niche in a particular society or culture. Some people may argue that human behaviors/personalities are not inherited - and therefore cannot influence evolution. However, there is increasing evidence that at least certain behavioral traits – ADHD for example, or tendency towards alcoholism and addiction – are in fact highly heritable traits.

While certainly not all behavioral traits are simply inherited (and therefore highly heritable), and those that are simply inherited are influenced by other factors like random chance and environmental factors, it is my belief that future discoveries will reveal that a significant portion of personality is in fact heritable. Psychologist Eric Turkheimer is quoted in the article “My Genome, My Self,” by Steven Pinker (discussed in the previous post), going as far as to say that,

THE NATURE-NURTURE DEBATE IS OVER… ALL HUMAN BEHAVIORAL TRAITS ARE HERITABLE.

When it comes to the future, Ward discusses two possible scenarios, both quite science-fiction in nature, but both rational possibilities. One is the infamous artificial intelligence (AI) scenario, in which we create robots with the ability to think for themselves, which then leads to the (inevitable?) ironic ending in which the machines we create, and ultimately come to depend on for survival, end up taking over. All I can say about the AI scenario is: I like to watch movies about the topic. But I certainly don’t have the expertise to speculate about the acumen of any arguments for, or against, the possibility.

The second scenario involves genetic modification, a topic with which I am much more familiar. But before I start , I want to preface my comments by saying that the proceeding concepts (along with AI) are still not feasible, and probably won’t be for quite some time (see previous post).

Now, genetic modification can be broken down into two categories: somatic cell modification (or gene therapy as it is often called) and germ-cell “therapy”. Somatic cell modification will absolutely be a reality at some point in the future, and probably far before germ-cell modification. And when it comes to somatic cell therapy, I personally have no objections (at this point – though I reserve my right to change my opinion – but I certainly have no “moral” objections to the concept). I’m sure, however, that when the possibility does become a reality it will be a hot topic for debate - as there will surely be plenty who feel strongly against it, just as there are many against genetically modified plants now.

When it comes to germ-cell genetic modification, all I really want to say is that, even when our great, great, great…grandchildren have a much better understanding of the human genome, I hope they are smart enough not to mess with germ-cells. What’s to keep every couple expecting a child to have the DNA analyzed to find what to fix. And if you ask me, that scenario can only play out to one end: everyone will be beautiful and intelligent, with an agreeable disposition – after all, WHO WOULD CHOOSE FOR THEIR KID TO BE UGLY AND STUPID?!? That's not to say the human race would turn into a completely homogenous group of “clones,” but it would be a very real possibility - and that’s one of the more benign forecasts when it comes to the possible consequences of messing with germ-cells.

Can your genes tell you who you are?

Article Review: My Genome, My Self - by Steven Pinker

It has now been almost exactly 13 years since the cloning of the first mammal (remember Dolly), and in case you haven’t realized, the genomics revolution is in full swing. For the price of a semester's worth of books, you can have your genome scanned for disease risks, ancestry data, and a small sample of traits; for the price of a luxury car, you can get a “complete” sequence (I use quotations because by complete what is really meant is the 1% that codes for proteins). And unlike most things these days, these prices are dropping precipitously. So the obvious questions are: WHAT CAN OUR GENES TELL US ABOUT WHO WE ARE, and what will be the consequences (good and/or bad) of having that information? Steven Pinker, a Harvard College professor of psychology, recently wrote the cover story for The New York Time Magazine on the topic (to link to the article, click on the title of the post - for some reason a direct link doesn't work, but you should be able to get to it from the page you are directed to).

According to Pinker, the two main concerns that have been raised are:

1) Possible discrimination based on genetic data

2) The possibility of companies taking advantage of hypochondriacs by “turning dubious probabilities into Genes of Doom”

In my opinion, the concerns, while something to be aware of, won’t cause significant problems. Bush has already passed a law against using genetic information as a basis for discrimination in the workplace or for healthcare - and there are many diseases for which tests already exist that can determine your susceptibility, so why should the same info coming from a different source cause a new problem? On top of that, I will explain below how discrimination based on genetic information is (like many forms of discrimination) simply a result of ignorance.

As for advantages, the two most obvious are:

1) The possibility for personalized medicine in which drugs are prescribed according to an individual's unique biochemistry

2) Possibility of being able to focus screening and prevention measures on those with the highest risk

Unfortunately, MOST OF THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF PERSONAL GENOME SEQUENCING WON'T BE REALIZED IN OUR LIFETIME. What most people don’t understand (including those who championed in the idea of eugenics, popular with many until relatively recently - Hitler being the most famous) is that there are two basic types of inheritance. The first is called Mendelian (aka qualitative, simple) inheritance.

Mendelian inheritance refers to traits that are the result of a single gene with two different versions. The classic example is from Mendel’s work with peas (hence Mendelian inheritance), in which height is controlled by a single gene with two versions, short and tall. In cases such as this, the trait (height) of an individual can be accurately predicted by which versions of the gene it possesses; tall version = tall plant, small version = small plant (another form of Mendelian inheritance has three classes in which 2 talls = tall, 1 tall + 1 short = medium, and 2 shorts = short). While there are a few examples of human traits that are inherited in this manner (diseases such as eye color, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs; also dwarfism), most follow a much more unpredictable mode of inheritance referred to as non-Mendelian (aka quantitative, complex, polygenic) inheritance.

Non-Mendelian inheritance refers to traits that are a result of many different genes, each contributing only slightly. This is the case for most traits in humans, including intellegence and height. Although we can all appreciate the fact that height is a highly heritable trait - “no one thinks Kareem Abdul-Jabbar just ate more Wheaties growing up than Danny DeVito,” - the reason that there aren’t just two or three classes of people (tall, medium, and short) is because dozens to hundreds of genes control human height, each contributing a small amount. This is the case for probably 99% of human traits.

On top of the fact that most traits are controlled by the small effects of many genes, in both kinds of inheritance, traits are also influenced by two other factors that can’t be predicted by your genome sequence: the environment and random chance. This means that even for Mendelian inheritance, where having a particular form of a gene directly determines the physical form of the trait, there will still be variation. This is inherently clear for anyone who has known identical twins. Their genomes are identical, but their personalities, and even physical appearances, are not. These differences are therefore a result of environment and/or random chance (there are actually many other factors that could cause variation, but I'm probably already getting more technical than I should).

Speaking of random chance, the last point I want to bring up is this: MANY MATHEMATICIANS CONSIDER THE PROBABILITY OF A SINGLE EVENT TO BE A MEANINGLESS CONCEPT. For example, when Pinker had his genome sequenced, he discovered he had a gene conferring upon him an 80% chance of baldness. But he’s not bald and shows no signs of balding being a problem in the future. The problem is trying to apply the proportion of people in a sample to an individual person – as Pinker says, “I’m not 80% bald, or even 80% likely to be bald. The most charitable interpretation of the number when applied to me is, ‘If you knew nothing else about me, your subjective confidence that I am bald, on a scale of 1-10, should be 8'.”

I know this post is a bit more than a nugget, but the overall point is this: don’t expect your genome to tell you much more about yourself than you can already find out by other means. In fact, old school means such as aptitude tests (like IQ scores for intelligence, or time in the fifty meter dash for athletic speed), are still much more accurate and informative - and will continue to be so for quite some time. I don't know about you, but I find some comfort in that. I mean, I think its nice to know that your genome can't tell you who you are, or as someone more poetic than I put it, "YOUR GENES ARE NOT YOUR DESTINY."