Drug giant Glaxo teams up with DNA testing company 23andMe

Drug giant Glaxo teams up with DNA testing company 23andMe

Home DNA test results from the 5 million customers of 23andMe will now be used by drug giant GlaxoSmithKline to design new drugs, the two companies announced Wednesday.

It’s the biggest partnership yet aimed at leveraging the increasingly popular home genetic testing market, in which customers pay for mail-in saliva tests that are analyzed by various companies. 23andMe dominates the market.

“By working with GSK, we believe we will accelerate the development of breakthroughs,” 23andMe CEO Anne Wojcicki wrote in a blog post.

I'm sure insurance companies, employers and government agencies will be quickly behind.

a reply to: loam

my tin foil hat just got a little tighter

My only beef is those who go through the service really have no way to verify what they're being told.

Abuse can come from any direction.

a reply to: loam

A lot of people have been warning that Big Pharma and insurance companies will be chasing this type of data. They were right.

There are obvious upsides in terms of exploring new treatments and medicines. An ethical company can potentially make a difference. Downsides are individuals and their families being tagged for conditions that might affect their insurance policies or employment prospects.

You might get yourself done and find out years later that your genome has been extrapolated across parents, children and immediate relatives. A doctor, Ben Goldacre, has warned that even anonymised data can be unpacked and used to identify groups. In a worst case scenario, your son or grandkids could be landed with higher premiums because you flagged up for gene markers associated with mental illness etc.

a reply to: loam

When I read that people were spitting into a vial and sending it off to have their DNA analyzed, I had a bad feeling.

For all those worried about insurance premiums, there will be no insurance. The for profit medical system is quickly killing it's self.

a reply to: Kandinsky

There are obvious upsides in terms of exploring new treatments and medicines.

Yep like running their data sets through a simulation to see which cures are most profitable.

Then the state gets a hold of it and uses it to jack medicare premiums.

It's not just limited to corporate abuse.

a reply to: Kandinsky

To your point:

The Privacy Delusions Of Genetic Testing

Customers are wrong to think their information is safely locked away...

New lab techniques can unearth genetic markers tied to specific, physical traits, such as eye or hair color. Sleuths can then cross-reference those traits against publicly available demographic data to identify the donors.

Using this process, one MIT scientist was able to identify the people behind five supposedly anonymous genetic samples randomly selected from a public research database. It took him less than a day. Likewise, a Harvard Medical School professor dug up the identities of over 80% of the samples housed in his school's genetic database. Privacy protections can be broken. Indeed, no less than Linda Avey, a cofounder of 23andMe, has explicitly admitted that "it's a fallacy to think that genomic data can be fully anonymized."

Right from the horse's mouth.

a reply to: loam

I was going to get my own family genome done until reading all the pros and cons. It's too great a risk imo. Me saying no doesn't even ensure privacy for my family because a cousin could do it and the family tree will become part of a greater set of data.

We already see datasets relating to regional mortality rates, education levels and so forth. Genome data can be another layer bringing a granularity of risk assessments that condemns families within those regional subsets. Or elevates them...

It's all fraught with potential for misuse and kinda like putting toothpaste back in the tube if it goes down the wrong path...

(apology for the mixed metaphors)

a reply to: Kandinsky

There are plenty of potential positives, and lots of potential negatives too.

The current problem is that sure you can look at genetic markers but just having a genetic marker doesn't guarantee you'll have what it predisposes you to. I think right now, any company who decides to jack your premium based on genetic risk for most conditions is asking for massive legal trouble.

How much predisposition is too much and demands increased coverage, for example? I mean, maybe it's one thing to know you and your potential genetic partner each carry a copy of the gene for cystic fibrosis, something whose mechanisms we understand very, very well, but it's another to look at someone and say, "You carry gene X and that gives you a 10% increased risk of cancer Y." A 10% increased risk is not a huge chance. Get out 100 rocks, make sure 10 of them are a different color then the rest, and spend time drawing out rocks and you'll see what a 10% chance is.

Then ask yourself if that 10% genetic chance is really worth charging more over the person who never eats any fiber and gets terribly obese? Maybe their chances are higher than that genetic chance alone.

But then again, people, especially those who put all their faith in science, have always had eugenic leanings.

The cure for cancer will be found by studying DNA.
Glaxo sees this.

Now when they do figure it out it will be a system of expensive procedures.....

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Kandinsky

I think right now, any company who decides to jack your premium based on genetic risk for most conditions is asking for massive legal trouble.

Not really.

If it doesn't implicate a Title VII claim, they can do whatever they want...and they will.

a reply to: ketsuko

Insurance companies hedge their bets and seek profits and legacy. It's not too hard to imagine a future where predispositions towards chronic ill health attract higher premiums than someone with fewer. It's been subject to debate for a few years now and God knows ethics aren't always the first port of call with new frontiers.

But then again, people, especially those who put all their faith in science, have always had eugenic leanings.

Rhetorical BS.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: ketsuko

Insurance companies hedge their bets and seek profits and legacy. It's not too hard to imagine a future where predispositions towards chronic ill health attract higher premiums than someone with fewer. It's been subject to debate for a few years now and God knows ethics aren't always the first port of call with new frontiers.

But then again, people, especially those who put all their faith in science, have always had eugenic leanings.

Rhetorical BS.

Science without ethics.

We can breed the better human if we just exert enough control. Look at how they've "eliminated" Down's Syndrome in certain countries. It isn't because they've actually discovered how to treat it; it's because they've instituted a ruthless abortion campaign.

Pro-choice or not, it's pretty cold.

a reply to: ketsuko

It's unexpected that eugenics could breeze in on the back of profit margins and annual shareholder statements. I always thought it'd be some ruthless dictatorship or somesuch.

They can find if someone is intolerant to certain meds through genetics. I think by teaming up they will be able to use the information to stipulate what snps will be processed, this will give the Pharma company information so someone will not be having so many side effects from their meds. The database of the interactions is far from complete yet, only maybe two hundred different meds have been evaluated and there are multiple pathways to consider, the evaluation may only be concerning one incompatable pathway, there could be more enzyme deficiencies to deal with on different pathways than tested.

I won't make a judgement on this action yet, it could be good, it could be bad. It is not that I distrust Pharma companies, I am kind of disgusted in the way they are evaluating the usefulness and method of action of their medicines. The possible side effects, some being worse than what you are treating are evident they are sooner or later going to negatively effect the patient. I think they need to get new, better researchers to find new metabolic pathways or inhibitors and promotors to fix problems. Some of the philosophy being used to design some of those drugs is primitive, I am not impressed with their methods of actions to treat symptoms.

a reply to: loam

Might turn out to be the biggest business mistake it has ever done,many are paranoid of doing testing in the first place,and the ones on edge will just go to rival,Ancestory.com,more money for competition what I was taught growing up is you try to get rivals customers,not give ones away,liberals have no business skills or any other