In the PLOS Genetics paper written by Do, Hinds, and Francke and titled “Comparison of Family History and SNPs for Predicting Risk in Complex Disease”, the authors forecasted the lifetime morbidity risk and heritability of liability risk for 24 ailments in total.
The first ailment on the list was coronary artery disease. The lifetime morbidity risk of the disease in 40%, whereas its heritability of risk liability is 49%.
The last ailment on the list is Crohn’s disease. The lifetime morbidity risk of the disease in 0.5% whereas its heritability of risk liability is 56%.
The researchers could, by using fine statistical methodologies to metabolomics, genomics, etc., at an accelerated rate, find links and, possible, the causation factors for a broad line of ailment states.
Provided the demand for new researches with p-values less than 0.05, these studies were relatively easy to publish.
An article was published in the journal ‘Nature’ on the 10th of December. It was titled: “The Gene-Based Hack that is Revolutionizing Epidemiology.” The article went over the cons of this genomic study land rush
David Adam, the author of the article, stated that as the information on genetics has gathered, they have observed an array of Mendelian randomization research that doesn’t come up to the mark. Where some researches depend on misleading information, others fail to adequately test the assumptions on which Mendelian randomization depends. He added that it is high time things are tightened up a little.
According to David Adam, this slackness is due to the overdependence on and particularly the rising custom of researchers to throw random bizarre ideas and observe if any correlation arises between genetic variants and said ideas. One is left to wonder where that idea could have possibly arisen from.