Does 23andMe have an obligation to be better with the information.
I think that they want to get better at it. It’s their mission to get people to make better decisions. In the realm of information that is frightening and worrisome, that’s not an easy thing to do. I met people in 23andMe and they are interested in the well-being of their users. When we did the tests with the people in my research lab I sent a report to them with our thoughts. My sense is that their heart is in the right place. From my perspective, doing the right thing and profiting form it is perfectly fine. It’s a simple starting point they began with: just give people the information and they’ll be better off with it. Now 23andMe need to refine their use of data. They have to have behaviorists on their staff and use them to make the information more useful. If you think you can just give people information and expect good response, no way. It’s way too much information and it is too expensive emotionally.
So how can they start to get better?
If I were their advisor I would make decisions for people. If the test reveals that you have a relatively high chance of colon cancer, but you can’t do anything about it, maybe we don’t even tell you that, but for sure not lead with this news front and center. But, if results suggest that you have a moderate chance of diabetes that you can control by changing behavior, I would emphasize that. I would lead with the family history and genetic mapping. It’s popular and less controversial. Next I would offer information and general suggestions for how you could improve life expectancy and quality of life, based on results that are actionable. Then, I would create another layer that would cost more to access and in that layer I would give all of the detailed information, including information about things that are largely out of your control. I would make that layer cost more because I want people to make an active choice to get that level of information. I basically want to make sure that people who go for that level of information want to invest in the burden of knowing. Even with all of this, I still think that the information communicated has to be better.
It sounds like this maybe shouldn’t be a consumer product yet?
I’m a big believer in technology and I think if it’s done right 23andME is a great product. I worry a lot that people don’t think about the future enough, and the lack of thinking about the future is a big part of my research. I think the ability to get people to look at the future in a meaningful way and help them shape it, could be very powerful. The promise is tremendous, the execution right now is not my favorite. I don’t’ want people to have the burden of information. I don’t want to frighten people. I don’t want to make them unnecessarily worried. And I suspect that simply giving people all the information will get them to act in all kinds of ways that aren’t optimal.
- More Here
I think that they want to get better at it. It’s their mission to get people to make better decisions. In the realm of information that is frightening and worrisome, that’s not an easy thing to do. I met people in 23andMe and they are interested in the well-being of their users. When we did the tests with the people in my research lab I sent a report to them with our thoughts. My sense is that their heart is in the right place. From my perspective, doing the right thing and profiting form it is perfectly fine. It’s a simple starting point they began with: just give people the information and they’ll be better off with it. Now 23andMe need to refine their use of data. They have to have behaviorists on their staff and use them to make the information more useful. If you think you can just give people information and expect good response, no way. It’s way too much information and it is too expensive emotionally.
So how can they start to get better?
If I were their advisor I would make decisions for people. If the test reveals that you have a relatively high chance of colon cancer, but you can’t do anything about it, maybe we don’t even tell you that, but for sure not lead with this news front and center. But, if results suggest that you have a moderate chance of diabetes that you can control by changing behavior, I would emphasize that. I would lead with the family history and genetic mapping. It’s popular and less controversial. Next I would offer information and general suggestions for how you could improve life expectancy and quality of life, based on results that are actionable. Then, I would create another layer that would cost more to access and in that layer I would give all of the detailed information, including information about things that are largely out of your control. I would make that layer cost more because I want people to make an active choice to get that level of information. I basically want to make sure that people who go for that level of information want to invest in the burden of knowing. Even with all of this, I still think that the information communicated has to be better.
It sounds like this maybe shouldn’t be a consumer product yet?
I’m a big believer in technology and I think if it’s done right 23andME is a great product. I worry a lot that people don’t think about the future enough, and the lack of thinking about the future is a big part of my research. I think the ability to get people to look at the future in a meaningful way and help them shape it, could be very powerful. The promise is tremendous, the execution right now is not my favorite. I don’t’ want people to have the burden of information. I don’t want to frighten people. I don’t want to make them unnecessarily worried. And I suspect that simply giving people all the information will get them to act in all kinds of ways that aren’t optimal.
- More Here
No comments:
Post a Comment