Pawandeep Singh Kohli

@anneroulin.bsky.social

Text from an FAQ in Okbay et al 20222: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-022-01016-z a similar same statement is made in an FAQ in 2025: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.05.14.653986v1.supplementary-material Text reads: "The results of SSGAC studies have sometimes been used by online platforms, including some companies, to predict individual outcomes. We recognize that returning individual genomic “results” can be a fun way to engage people in research and other projects and to feed or stoke their interest in genomics. But it is important that participants/users understand that these individual results are not meaningful predictions and should be regarded essentially as entertainment. Failure to make this point clear risks sowing confusion and undermining trust in genetics research"

It is depressing, but all too predictable, how swiftly we’ve gone from the Social Science Genetic Association Consortium offering reassurances about the uses of behavioural polygenic scores to one of their lead authors marketing embryo selection for IQ

Thanks!

Physiological and genetic basis of superior phosphate uptake and utilization efficiency in the rice landrace Wazuhophek Abstract. Low phosphorus (P) availability due to edaphic conditions or the scarcity of P fertilizers restricts agricultural productivity. Various rice-grow

My PhD paper is out! 🎉 We've uncovered the physiological and genetic basis that makes the rice landrace Wazuhophek incredibly efficient at using phosphate.
doi.org/10.1093/jxb/...