I had the occasion this past weekend to be out with my wife doing
some shopping. Apparently, I have
been too busy of late to notice that
my wardrobe had been in some decline. My wife therefore drug me out on
grey Saturday (which follows Black Friday) to hit the local Nordstrom Rack. I was shamed into trying on jeans formerly priced at over $200 (who pay sthis kind of money for a pair of jeans?), gigolo bling-bling shoes (are pointy toes really appropriate for male shoes?) , and a variety of belts and watches (how does wearing a watch “change” my outfit) required to properly “accessorize” my look. We ultimately settled out on some funky 7 Diamonds and Roar surfer shirts to match the now half priced jeans. More on the shoes later.
The experience of “accessorizing” reminded me of a recent post by Matthew Holt regarding Personal Genome Management. Matthew reviews some of the recent buzz surrounding 23andMe, highlights longtime player DNA Direct, and then puts out some thoughts as to where the market is and can go over the next several years (there is some interesting banter within the comments section as well). He concludes with this consideration:
“The genetic test market is very small, and the
management services that these companies offer around it are going to
only be a share of the testing market itself. So the fact that Navigenics
has already raised money at a substantial valuation means that some
very astute people are thinking that genetic testing will turn from an occasional activity for a small minority of patients (usually those going into pregnancy with some type of risk factor) into
a consumer norm that most patients will have as part of the standard
testing they get done and that management of that genetic information
will be part of the new flow of consumer and clinician activity.”
Matthew hints at something that I believe most people have failed to
grasp when considering the genetic market. I actually see three
distinct limitations:> Continue this post over at the Health 2.0 Blog ….
