This paper is interesting and thought provoking in its claims - even
though it's probably essentially wrong [tm] *.

                http://www.bioscienceresource.org/commentaries/article.php?=
id=3D46

http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/index.php?option=3Dcom_content&view=3Darti=
cle&id=3D10184&catid=3D1&Itemid=3D17

Fighting words:

 " As the analysis also points out, the findings resolve the biggest
conundrum in human health. The epidemiological data have always
indicated that Western diseases are determined overwhelmingly by diet
and other non-genetic factors. Similarly, clinical data have
frequently shown that many diseases can be reversed or accelerated by
diet and other lifestyle choices. The crucial importance of the new
genomic findings is therefore to show that genetic research does not
after all contradict these environmental explanations of disease.
Rather, it now very strongly supports them."

Study by: Jonathan Latham, PhD, is Executive Director of The
Bioscience Resource Project. Allison Wilson, PhD, is the Science
Director and co-founder of the Bioscience Resource Project.

I realise that it's rash for an educated but not overly informed
layman to rail against such obviously confident statementsby so
eminently qualified researchers.  I have no hesitation in doing so.
(Fools rush in ...). We'll see :-).

I consider that it tells us as much or more about our knowledge of how
genetics work as it does about what genetics currently tell us.

Of interest is the observation": "The Great DNA Data Deficit: Are
genes for disease a mirage? which will be published on December 9th,
2010, points out that the hiding places on which geneticists' hopes
are now resting would require genes for disease to be located in
places distinct from where almost all other genetic information has so
far been found. These hiding places are thus scientifically highly
implausible."

Containing as it does the two points:

-  would require genes for disease to be located in places distinct
from where almost all other genetic information has so far been found.

and

- These hiding places are thus scientifically highly implausible.

I wonder how much information, the, is to be found in the places where
we largely haven't found things, and what we have to do to improve the
plausibility of mechanisms which are almost certainly [tm]*  real
world reality.

Consider: Is it "plausible", based on your knowledge  of human
knowledge, that all major heart disease does not have a genetic
component? For me, with a family history 4 out of 4 of severe heart
disease a generation back on one side, and 1/1 2 back, that would be
good news. For the many people for whom "cancer of some sort or other
runs in the family" it would be equally good news. So too for
depression, adhd (whether or not its "real", and all mental illnesses.
The reality is that a major proportion of all these are clearly [tm]
genetically biased from a layman's perspective. Allowance for
conformation bias, lack of epidemiological evidence, probable presence
of counfounding factors, small and biased samples and more, the
evidence is still "clear"*[ tm]

Why this is not evident to the researchers should make  interesting
reading as this survey is sure to be very widely quoted and discussed.






        Russell





* I claim.
Prof Ioannidis agrees with me, of course :-).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._A._Ioannidis
Goodland & Greenland are not so sure :-)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1855693/?tool=3Dpmcentrez
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.