This study, by @mendel_random @timfrayling and others, shows that participation in various parts of the UK biobank depends in complex ways on genotype. You can imagine what I think-- the authors take a steadfastly optimistic tone- we can use this to control for bias! /1
Whereas I see it as the bubbles slowly rising to the surface as the GWAS-of-behavior project disappears under the surface of the gloomy prospect. But that isn't what I want to say here-- instead I want to be very old-fashioned. /2
One thing that GWAS has done has shown the limitations of automated, hypothesis-free research. I was trained in the "you need to have a theory" model, and I am very aware of all the trouble that caused. GWAS is the purest form of reaction against that tradition. /3
The authors report, without a hint of irony or Bayesian skepticism, that "For example, older age of losing virginity caused participants to complete more FFQ and have higher odds of participation in the MHQ" Wut? /4
I don't have the right answer here, but I do think GWAS-world needs to be careful. Cranking through method-driven studies with complete disregard for what the results actually mean isn't science, it's stamp collecting. That didn't work for twin studies and it won't work now. /end
Someone should have told me that I forgot to include a link to the study! Urgh.... nature.com/articles/s4146…
Someone should have told me that I forgot to include a link to the study! Urgh.... nature.com/articles/s4146…
Per a discussion about tagging as many authors as possible... apologies for not including the first time. And by the way... I would value pushback on my opinions! Study was led by @JSTyrrell and Kate Tilling.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
