Michael White is an assistant professor of genetics at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, where he is a member of the Center for Genome Sciences and Systems Biology. He is a co-founder of the online science public house and blog, the Finch and Pea.
The Joseph DeAngelo case has raised concerns about the privacy of data produced by consumer genetic tests. But really, law enforcement should be using DNA evidence more often.
Good science can combat misinformation, but it won't resolve public debates over homosexuality.
After decades of disappointment, cures to once-incurable diseases seem within reach.
Without broad participation, science will lose its economic power and legitimacy.
Why one scientist changed his mind on using gene drives for conservation.
It's become too late to ask whether or not we should edit the human germline; we can now only ask how the experiments will proceed.
When the Nobel committees ignore women who do Nobel-caliber science, the awards deserve to lose their relevance.
Opponents dismiss fetal tissue research as unnecessary, but it plays a critical role in regenerative medicine.
Four crucial facts about race, sex, and biology that contradict this messy argument.
Biofuels can reduce emissions, benefit American corporations, and create jobs. But slashing the budget of the Bioenergy Technologies Office effectively eliminates those possibilities.
A new study looks at racial disparities in genetic testing for cancer patients.
The answer involves both biology and economics, but the opioid crisis is forcing us to consider investing more in pain research.
Biomedical researchers can see a future where genetic tests are used to treat and prevent many diseases before major symptoms even present themselves. But that future won't be possible without strong insurance protections for pre-existing conditions.
Political activism for science is fine as long as science itself remains trustworthy.
Consumer genetic tests like 23andMe aren't medical devices, and the FDA shouldn't regulate them like blood-sugar meters or pregnancy tests.
Widespread sexual exploitation before the Civil War strongly influenced the genetic make-up of essentially all African Americans alive today.
A study of Neanderthal genes demonstrates the research power of electronic health records.
The causes of cancer are complex, but many cases can be prevented by better public health programs.
A new genetic engineering technology could help fight malaria, but can it be used responsibly?
As researchers think about how to improve reproducibility, it's important to remember that failure is a crucial part of the scientific process.
We all carry genetic mutations, and new studies are revealing their impact.
A new method of citation network analysis could be used to make the case for the importance of basic research.
As a new non-invasive technology makes prenatal genetic tests more common, many more pregnant women will have to choose whether or not to have a disabled child.
The discovery of an ancient man with a recent Neanderthal ancestor illustrates how quickly the science of Stone Age humans has changed.
Though a new generation of genetically engineered microbes is raising fears about home-brew heroin, a technology de-coupled from the whims of growing seasons could also mean cheaper, legal drugs.
The morality of human embryonic stem cell research has long been contentious, but new discoveries could end the controversy.
The world needs to double its food supply, and scientists have proposed a major genetic engineering program to make it happen.
Genetic tests are becoming increasingly common, but a major medical organization argues that we should be cautious about testing children.
Genetic studies of living Native Americans and ancient remains are revising our theories about America’s first inhabitants.
A study finds a new link between mutations and intellectual disability, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore non-genetic factors.
Academic publishing has been slow to make use of social media, but new experiments could push the industry—and science—forward.
Basic research can seem wasteful, but politicians should resist the temptation to set science’s priorities.
New guidelines proposed by the National Institutes of Health have already been rejected by several major scientific journals.
A new generation of biotechnology crops designed to appeal to consumers is likely to radically change the controversy over GMOs.
Researchers are finding many genes unique to our species, but so far they reveal little about our most human traits.
Genetically engineered babies raise a host of disturbing, science fiction-worthy ethical questions, but we have a more mundane and much more urgent issue to consider: safety.
But the research is helping us to accept the role that biology plays in our lives and our society.
The stakes of the analysis are much higher when lives are on the line.
Medicine, with few exceptions, grows by evolution, not revolution. And geneticists working on complex diseases have a long, difficult road ahead.
By imposing burdensome regulations on genetic testing, the FDA will put small, innovative players out of business and leave the field to "large commercial entities" with near-monopoly power and few incentives to keep up with the latest science.
People with a specific mutation in one gene are substantially more likely to be obese than those without it. But they are also at higher risk of suffering from environmental factors.
There's some evidence of a reproducibility problem. But the more recent emphasis on exact replication of experiments may be misguided.
By not taking university press officers and research press releases seriously, scientists are often complicit in the media falsehoods they so often deride.
The publishers seem to care more about their image and financial bottom line than their core scientific functions.
Behavioral changes in our gut ecosystems will likely become key to spotting cancer—but can the new diagnostic methods help scientists treat it?
The only problem is that it may not be much of a code at all.
Following the recent T-shirt controversy, it's clear that sexism in science persists. But the forces driving the gender gap are still being debated.
In ordinary ways, it's erasing some of the last century's impressive progress toward eliminating preventable illnesses and deaths.
