|
|
||||||||||||||
|
"Long
before it's in the papers" RETURN TO THE WORLD SCIENCE HOME PAGE Longevity findings in question July 9, 2010 Some geneticists are doubting the validity of a new
study claiming that a group of genes can predict who will live the longest with 77 percent accuracy,
The New York Times reported Thursday. Send us a comment
on this story, or send
it to a friend
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
Some geneticists are doubting the validity of a new study claiming that a group of genes can predict who will live the longest with 77 percent accuracy, The New York Times reported Thursday. Meanwhile, the senior scientist on the study acknowledged there was a technical error in the work, but said it did not affect the conclusions. “I think it is very unlikely indeed that the findings… are correct, or even mostly correct,” David B. Goldstein, a geneticist at Duke University in North Carolina, wrote last week in an e-mail message, according to the Times. The Times quoted geneticist Kari Stefansson of Decode Genetics, an Icelandic company, as saying that the study’s key weakness involved one of the devices, called gene chips, used to scan the genome of study participants. The device, called the Illumina 610, attributes an uncommon form of a gene as having come from both parents instead of just one, Stefansson told the Times. The result, she added, would be that the chip would throw off results if just 10 percent of participants were tested using it. One of the scientists involved in the study told the newspaper that about 10 percent of the participants were indeed tested using that chip, but that the problem would affect only two of the 33 gene variants that the study focused on. Stefansson disagreed and said that the problem affects all the results, according to the Times. The study, from Boston University Schools of Public Health and Medicine and Boston Medical Center, was published July 1 online by the research journal Science. In a statement on Wednesday, editors of the journal’s said they were having the findings reanalyzed, but that its reviewers had “determined that the statistics and the design of the study were sound.” |
|||||||||||||