“The real message here is that conventional medicine doesn’t have to be replaced or supplanted by genomic medicine. The integration of blood tests with genome sequencing adds so much granularity and precision.”
Elaine R. Mardis as quoted in Eisenberg, Anne. “A Geneticist’s Research Turns Personal.” The New York Times. 2 June 2012. Web. 4 Jun. 2012 [source]
Dr. Michael Snyder, a professor and chairman of the genetics department at the Stanford University School of Medicine, sequenced his genome and learned that he had a high risk for Type 2 diabetes. Not long after learning about this risk, he caught a cold passed on to him by his children that may have helped prompt the onset of diabetes via stress. However because Dr. Snyder had analyzed his genome and monitored his molecular data (RNA, proteins, metabolites and autoantibodies) from his blood samples, he was able to make the necessary changes to his lifestyle and treat his diabetes 18 - 20 months before his next doctors visit. Dr. Snyder was thus able to avoid any serious damage by combining the new, genomic sequencing, with the old, standard blood tests.
Don’t get all of your hopes up yet, human genome sequencing is still $4,000 but according to George M. Church, a , the price could fall to $1,000 or less within the next year. professor at Harvard Medical School
You can read his study at this link, it’s pretty cool.
“It’s my view that if you put the best scientists, science communicators, and science journalists in a room, it wouldn’t take long for them to agree on the basics of good medical science reporting.
A checklist would look something like the following. Every story on new research should include the sample size and highlight where it may be too small to draw general conclusions. Any increase in risk should be reported in absolute terms as well as percentages: For example, a “50 percent increase” in risk or a “doubling” of risk could merely mean an increase from 1 in 1,000 to 1.5 or 2 in 1,000. A story about medical research should provide a realistic time frame for the work’s translation into a treatment or cure. It should emphasize what stage findings are at: If it is a small study in mice, it is just the beginning; if it’s a huge clinical trial involving thousands of people, it is more significant. Stories about shocking findings should include the wider context: The first study to find something unusual is inevitably very preliminary; the 50th study to show the same thing may be justifiably alarming. Articles should mention where the story has come from: a conference lecture, an interview with a scientist, or a study in a peer-reviewed journal, for example.”