Unless there’s another article that andrewphelps is referring to, or the online version has been tweaked from the print version, I don’t think you can call the NYT coverage irresponsible – this qualifier-laden verbiage is the second paragraph:
“When it becomes affordable to have one’s genome sequenced, perhaps in a few years, a longevity test, though not a foolproof one, may be feasible, if a new claim holds up. Scientists studying the genomes of centenarians in New England say they have identified a set of genetic variants that predicts extreme longevity with 77 percent accuracy.”
If bets were hedged any further, the thing would be unreadable!
Dave Brooks
Unless there’s another article that andrewphelps is referring to, or the online version has been tweaked from the print version, I don’t think you can call the NYT coverage irresponsible – this qualifier-laden verbiage is the second paragraph:
“When it becomes affordable to have one’s genome sequenced, perhaps in a few years, a longevity test, though not a foolproof one, may be feasible, if a new claim holds up. Scientists studying the genomes of centenarians in New England say they have identified a set of genetic variants that predicts extreme longevity with 77 percent accuracy.”
If bets were hedged any further, the thing would be unreadable!
Andrew Phelps
Dave, I hadn’t read the NYT story. I had heard an NPR story and read about the study elsewhere on the Web.
Blogged here: http://wbur.org/2010/07/02/dna-determinism