From my personal experience having done the whole 23andMe program last summer; it is at best good for cocktail party conversation and at worse just a gimmick. The thing that bugs me is the unrelenting request for more information, for research purposes of course. They want my health data; for what? To sell me more products? Probably.
1
Why does the Times keeping shilling for Silicon Valley? DNA testing serves no serious purpose, but it can and will serve a sinister one. Send your saliva swab to outfits like 23andMe or Ancestry.com and your DNA profile is added to a huge database. Ms Wojcicki, like Mr. Zuckerberg, will sell the information to "friends and family" but mostly to pharmaceutical marketers and insurance companies, who can purchase a list of DNA profiles "likely to develop" disorders such as adult onset diabetes some other chronic and costly condition; those companies can then run the results against their underwriting databases and issue policy cancellations to individuals foolish enough to have voluntarily if unwittingly added their DNA profile to the 23andMe database. Not only that, but you paid $300 to learn something you could learn just by asking about your grandparents.
2
Appreciated your thoughts Anne. Prevention is not taught but learned after allopathic/medical fails you. The monetizing of prevention is that my dollar speaks, by spending my money for what works. Broken system needs changing. Laws are made my powerful pharmaceutical, AMA, etc. 3 main ideas on my mind.
The comments proved far more interesting than the interview, and I appreciated reading them.
2
Anne Wojcicki demonstrates much the same arrogance, hubris, and underlying stupidity as the tech titans who now tell us that they plan to make themselves personally immortal.
They should all read a good book called "Tuck Everlasting". It is the story of a family whose members become accidentally and involuntarily immortal.
It doesn't go so well. One of them says: "We don't even live, we Tucks. We just are. We just be. We are like rocks by the roadside. I would get back onto the wheel of life and death in a moment, if I only could."
Wisdom beyond Ms. Wojcicki's grasp.
10
If she wants to be healthy and happy at age 100, she should wear better shoes and quit working in that silly sheath dress. So southern CA. Such a formula for limited women today (they used to bind feet, now they just restrict movement to sheath dresses a la Ivanka - it's all the same.
When women can look as bad as Mark Zuckerburg we'll know the playing field is finally level.
7
Really? That is all you you came away with? Women do not need to be told how to dress especially this woman. None of your business.
If she wants to be healthy at 100, the best thing she can do is give herself to being a purposerful, compassionate, serving member of her community. Not to 'monetizing' things.
8
23 and me peddles snake oil in order to hoard information, same tactic than google, Facebook
Don’t fall in the honey pot
6
It's not necessarily that she's a bad person, as some comments suggest, (she may or may not be) for wanting to "monetize" prevention of disease/working with genetics. It's the system we live in that is - capitalism says something is only really worth doing if we can make a profit out of it. The fact that she wracks her brain trying to wring profits out of disease prevention is sad - under a different system, with a different logic of rewards, a smart person like her wouldn't have been forced to spend time on the actually morally repugnant question of how to make money out of stopping people getting sick - she'd have spent all her time figuring out how to stop people getting sick.
5
She wants to "monetize prevention." So American. We won't to monetize everything. Everything has to turn a profit, and the bigger profit our monetization brings, the better. This is what is wrong with healthcare. After having an elderly family member in a hospital recently, and then a skilled nursing home for rehab, I can tell you that the road we're on to maximize monetization isn't a pretty sight. There were times the run-ragged nurses (ant this was even in the best of places) didn't even make eye contact with the patient they were caring for. Because that would have broken their stride toward the 'covered' medical tasks they had to complete in order to maximize profits. IT's okay Anne, you can monetize prevention, but please don't try to make it sound like, or fool yourself that this is the profit motive at work, not the service motive.
5
From Thursday's puzzle... "In the fight between you and the world, back the world" - Franz Kafka
4
"Monetize prevention" is yet another evil idea of U.S. capitalism, so once again, only the wealthy can access it. MONEY - the only thing that matters in the U.S.
7
There is a lot of social engineering, eugenics, and economic reform embedded in the ascendant goal to "live forever".
DNA testing will clearly bring new drugs to attack illness, disease, and other maladies. But a natural world will evolve and attack back. This is a battle without end.
DNA testing will also bring us tantalizingly closer to the goal of eradicating human traits we find objectionable. Sadly, that world is closer to our grasp; and we will see other undesirable traits added to Down syndrome as an acceptable justification for abortion.
Living past 100 is a laudatory goal, if our bodies and our brains remain viable and robust, in each case. Short of that, however, we may have a body dragging around an unwilling brain or vice versa. At a minimum, we need to tackle the nettlesome problem of work, leisure, and more mouths to feed if we now assume that we will stop working in our 60s and become
needful of financial support for another 40 years. No amount of human productivity, in a world where automation renders even more of us superfluous, will keep up with immortality and the eventual need for care.
People like this are living in half a world, a world without depth and without any thought of ultimate consequence. As we strive to create a world without pain, suffering or hardship, we essentially live on a credit card. And living on a credit card is great. Until it isn't.
10
Be very careful with these DNA tests!!!
Insurance companies are a prime buyer of this information.
If you can be identified and have a cancer marker, for example, you could lose your health insurance or have to pay an exorbitant amount for it.
Beware of good intentions.
8
Wow, what a nasty worldview this woman expresses by admitting she stays up at night wondering how the prevention of disease can be monetized. As if there are two choices--monetization of prevention or of health care. Apparently, it is not enough for her to cull “customers'" DNA for a price and then sell that data. She must also find a way to extract some bigger piece of everyone’s meager wealth. Make no mistake, Ms. Wojjcicki is competing with the likes of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg for who will be the world's next wealthiest billionaire (though of course in true Silicon Valley fashion, it's all for "the greater good"). In the face of such monstrous ambition, I hope people will learn to empower themselves to live better without the effort being funneled through the coffers of an "entrepreneur." As for DNA testing by and of itself, how does knowing the likelihood of getting Alzheimer's while there is no cure for the disease do anyone any good? As a species, aren't we already stressed enough by knowing our mortality without also knowing what is most likely to kill us?
15
I think this is a remarkably unfair misreading of what she is actually saying. If all she was dreaming of was wealth, there are plenty of easier ways to get it than inventing some entirely new paradigm of health care. What she is communicating is that her priority is finding a way to develop better preventative care, and she understands the best way to do that is by monetizing it. It's great that altruistic people are already working on this goal. It'll be even better if you can get additional smart people working on this project, and it'll be easier to do that if it provides a route to be rich, or at least not be poor.
There's always going to be people who care only/primarily about making a buck. So give them a channel to do that in a way that also helps society at large. It's better than becoming any one of our countless varieties of predatory economic actors.
And on the flipside, why should people who are primarily driven by altruistic motives have to also take vows of poverty?
She's not talking about mastering preventative medicine to funnel all the profits into her own pocket. She's talking about creating a profitable company that can achieve huge social benefits while also creating a way for large numbers of people to make a good living, herself included.
I feel like it would take a true nasty worldview to read such darkness into her admirable comments here.
9
What the lady is communicating is that profit rules. Just preventing disease isn't enough if she can't monetize this. Of course we all need to earn a living, and we'd all like a nice living, a good lifestyle. But to take pride in your money-oriented goals is...well, it's a pretty sad comment on our value system. I've been thinking about 23andMe, just for a lark. Now: no thanks.
6
@Kevin You're funny! The idea of one profit-motivated, wealthy individual inventing an entire new paradigm of health care. Have you read the article? It's about monetizing prevention, not health care. I'll say it again: It's not enough for Wojcicki and her ilk to be predatory top down capitalists, they must also wrap themselves in altruistic motives. Talk about having your cake and eating it too! As for your last sentence: Why is it that people who point out cynicism are always accused of being cynics?
4
The dream of living to one hundred years is great but the writing is on the wall and I have no doubt that genetic testing will be sold to anyone that ultimately, will use the results to price you out of your dream of old age.
All info (data) is for sale these days under one guise or another.
There are many aspects of the computer age that are wolves in sheeps clothing.
5
Someone please tell me what's wrong with having asparagus pee? I consider it one of life's perks.
17
And who needs an expensive test to know if you have it! I’ve known since childhood, but only got the explanation much later--long before 23 and Me.
4
No thanks.
Not signing up to give my genetic identity over to anyone for profit.
7
I don't know. How much is a genetic identity worth ?
Maybe I could get that boat I've always wanted before I get much older....hmmm. The American market, everything has a price.
As somebody who works in venture capital and health care, I’d say leave the science to the scientists
This is the health care version of payday lending
10
Many people want to know about their genes because they're curious about their ancestry.
5
There is no HIPAA protection for your data in their possession. The regulations she spoke of apply to how much information they can give out to you.
1
They need to start pairing up DNA with profiles of the microbiome. Then we'll be getting to someplace new in treatments and wellness.
2
The comments so far are so negative. I want to make a point to some of you: I don't care what has happened with aging and medical science until now. Things are about to change and change rapidly. We are on the cusp of immensely powerful and productive changes in our health and longevity.
Some of you think there's some kind of natural dignity in aging and dying as humans always have. I've seen a family member slowly dissolved, literally mentally and physically before my eyes, by Alzheimers disease, and it is my immense wish to never witness that again.
Having healthy longevity is an absolutely practical and rational goal. Stop acting like people who want longer, healthier lives are just greedy and need to get out of the way of future generations by dying off. Birth rates have fallen sharply--and even if they hadn't, it's only logical that those of us who are alive should want to stay alive, happy, healthy, and productive for as long as possible. You want to contribute your DNA and help expand the understanding of genetic influences on diseases, fine; you don't, fine. But don't tell me what to do with my genetic material, and don't blame me for supporting and desiring something that is absolutely rational.
You go, Anne (you and I are the same age). Keep fighting to give us long lives with dignity and less suffering. Ignore the noise from people who say we shouldn't or couldn't.
23
No one is against healthy aging, but we already know how to do that. The answer to disseases such as dementia will come with research eventually, as will medical treatments based on genetics, but Ms. W gets it wrong in the first paragraph by blaming it all on lack of “prevention” and characterizing medicine as grubbing for money from preferring sickness. As if she gives away her gene tests.
The best thing you can do to live to be 100 (or more) is to choose your parents well--good luck with that. That’s no reason to choose a lifestyle that will reduce your life span, but being healthy at 100 is already within our grasp--for those who start with good genes.
5
'Dying off' is one thing. Living for decades in serious pain &/or discomfort is another. I didn't quit smoking because of the fear of lung cancer. I figured if I got that, I'd either be cured or die in short order. It was when I became fully conscious of the risk of emphysema that I quit.
4
Tracy: beautifully written, thank you.
I’m afraid I’m about to see a loved one go through the Alzheimer hell, and I agree with you 100%. The conservative people who don’t want change are not the ones who change the world for the better. The crazy ones likes us who defy the norms are.
"Is there a way to monetize prevention?" Sure. Just keep promoting fear. That's the good old American way. Insurance companies, medical tests, bleeding/leading headlines, guns, APOE, BRC. Money makes the world go 'round.
6
wow, thanks for the insights. what does Bono and Sean Penn think about this?
1
She seems very comfortable with the concept of monetizing. Big red flag for me. Monetizing people on their way to the graveyard is as cynical as it gets. So it goes.
13
I enjoyed this interview and what the interviewee had to say.
4
I only want one thing before I die, to die healthy. Of course, we don't have a say about that. But then again, if you go through life smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, drinking like there no tomorrow, and all the other really unhealthy things that people do, don't expect to die healthy. Burn one end of the candle not both.
5
Is "die healthy" an oxymoron?
1
Hilarious article, please, choose quickly a new marketing agency and read a bit of science at night, oh, by the way, thank you for saving the world lol
7
Great comment.
What she should be thinking about at night is a hairdresser who can fix that mop.
11
You should be ashamed of yourself for such a sexist comment. She's not here to be eye candy for you (regardless of that fact, I think she is beautiful. And that's entirely irrelevant).
6
Thank you for sharing.
2
You can attack Ms Wojcicki, but it should be on an intellectual level. This isn't middle school.
6
Re: Rodriguez "And that boy, he goes after the world with a voracious appetite." I am the only person finding it strange that she is referring to him as a "boy"? I know she certainly sounds like someone reducing others to numbers, digits, statistics, but "boy" seems to suggest another level of eugenicist doggerel.
12
Staying up at night trying to solve the world's problems is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to healthy aging and longevity.
My free advice in her quest to reach a vibrant 100: get to sleep!
6
Nearly all of “preventive medicine” is really risk reduction (by a fairly small percentage) or early detection (which does not guarantee a cure — sometimes just more treatment with the same outcome).
Even exercise and diet can only do so much. The rest is about genes and luck.
I’d rather see the focus on dying with dignity and more choices for end of life. Chasing longer life is wishful thinking and a waste of resources.
31
Again, there is even reason to be concerned with the accuracy of home genetic profiling or testing:
https://www.nature.com/articles/gim201838
March 22, 2018
False-positive results released by direct-to-consumer genetic tests highlight the importance of clinical confirmation testing for appropriate patient care
11
What I genuinely spend my nights thinking about is: Is there a way to monetize prevention?
[ There is Weight Watchers and healthy foods, there are gyms and pools, there are a range of vaccines, painstaking research on drug development, there is psychological counseling... What are you thinking about at night? Another Theranos? Magic would not seem to be the answer. ]
19
Reading this interview again, to be sure, the idea that this company could discover a cure for Alzheimer's and such strikes me as ridiculous. This is not a scientific research venture, doing transparent bio-medical research. What am I missing?
15
I believe what you are missing is that 23 and Me makes available to researchers the tens of millions of DNA samples it has access to. (One has to opt in and agree to this, btw). They don't do the actual research themselves. However without the 23 and Me database the research would be much more difficult if not impossible.
25
You’re not missing anything and I appreciate your comments. This young woman may have found a way to get rich off people’s curiosity about their ancestry, but she is no scientist, nor does she even have a grasp of what science is or how it works.
6
Sorry, but if there is any science about this interview I could not find it. This strikes me as a pitch for pseudo-science.
28
Delivered by an undergrad Bio major who just happened to marry the co-founder of Google.
5
This is anecdotal I know;
My dear mother recently celebrated her 97th birthday.
She has lived a simple, humble, and healthy life both physically and emotionally. She was born and raised in a country (Greece) that values simplicity in food, exercise, medication, etc.
I find it so ironic that people like Ms. Wojcicki will create great stress physically, financially and emotionally to try and extend their lives. Still, I wish her good luck in her endeavor.
ps My dear mom credits the following to her longevity; long walks, good sleep, faith, a simple good reason or reasons to get out of bed every day, a little bit of everything as for food and in moderation...and, oh yeah! a strong Greek coffee everyday after she wakes-up from her nap. All these things I believe are not too difficult...
Good health and longevity to all those reading this!
51
And good genes.
3
You forgot an important component essential to a long life: Good genes. Lifestyle enhances good genes and the combination is what leads to good aging.
4
The only one of your recommendations I question, John, is 'faith'. It's not a choice. You either have it or you don't. And that depends on both nature & nurture.
2
"But your ultimate ambition is to take data culled from your customers’ DNA and use it to find cures and develop drugs."
When you send your DNA off to one of these companies, where will it end up and how closely will it be connectable to you? In light of recent data breaches and revelations that FB etc. are selling your info to the highest bidder, do you want to take such a chance?
14
Anne,
Monetizing prevention? Laudable perhaps but probably too narrow. If you live to 100, and it's likely these days if you don't get killed in a car wreck, but can't run/jump/ski/etc and even though you are still articulate and keenly aware of the situation can that be enough? Maybe the target turns into "enhancement" which would include "prevention". Monetize "enhancement" all along the way and suddenly prevention becomes a side effect. Go visit some of the thousands of folks who are already 30-50 years ahead of you and envision the impact of enhancement versus prevention.
7
'Ru'? 'jump'? 'ski'? Personally, I'd settle for an absence of pain & discomfort.
1
Monetizing prevention is laudable? What crassness.
1
Healthy is an ill-defined term.
I wonder what Anne Wojcicki means specifically when she uses it. Especially at 100 years of age.
Stephen Rinsler, MD
22
Silicon valley billionaires are obsessed with old age and death. They have found that their money can buy them almost anything but yet they cannot slow down their relentless march toward decay and death. So they think that by throwing money into science, there will be some magic wand that will ward it off. The reality is much of aging is a complex process of evolution. Evolution decided it was better for overall resilience and survival to have our genes to recombine and achieve a sort of immortality through offspring than for individuals to go on living forever.
50
Anne's married to Sergey Brin, and that explains and tells you a lot.
She and he are part of that We're Billionaires And We're Gonna Live Forever, Dammit! set we have to deal with here in the SF Bay Area.
That group is amazing, all right, in their belief in the concept of eternal life thanks to tech and pharmas and their ability to keep throwing cash at the ideas.
Fact is, Anne likely will live to 100 AND be quite healthy with the "primitive" modalities in use right now, in 2018. She's not only aware and motivated, but she has plenty of cash to pay for the best care - unlike many "normal" people out there - and lives in a region chock-full of great health providers and centers.
8
They divorced in 2015.
6
At first I thought this woman was trying go be a female Jack LaLanne, ie don't eat white bread, dessert, smoke, exercise six hrs a day and live on veggie smoothies. (That is ok is you want to live to 100 but have a dull life) but no.
She seems to view science as the way to "live forever".
Both views are not realistic. Most people don't want to live like Jack LaLanne (nor a rocker who dies at 27) but medical advances can only do so much. Yes, our life span has doubled or tripled since the Stone Age but that was over 10,000 Yrs.
These medical advances come at a glacial pace despite what we think.
I once read back issues of. The Bklyn Eagle, a major local paper in my area here. In one of its 1899 issues it predicted advances coming in the 20 century including medical advances. Most of them were wrong.
The general prediction I loved the best was saying that the black and brown race will going extinct at the end of the 20th Century.
They certainly didn't but the Bklyn Eagle did in 1955.
26