Abstract
Much of modern genomics and the other ‘omics’ that tag along, assert that the causal bases of biomedical outcomes are genomically enumerable lists whose effects are predictable with ‘precision’, extensible from samples to all, and enabled by ever-greater hypothesis-free data accumulation. The assertion rests on fundamental, if often implicit assumptions, that (1) the phenomena are based on underlying law-like biological causation, and, therefore, are (2) replicable and (3) even if not deterministic, have specifiable, stable, essentially parametric, probabilities, all of which (4) essentially equates induction with deduction, enabling asymptotically accurate prediction based on past observation. These glowing promises are the four horsemen of a genocentric ‘Omicsalypse’. But what if the assumptions are wrong or appropriate only to an extent that is unknowable, even in principle? Might there be better ways to understand complex traits?
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bard J, Rhe S (2004) Ontologies in biology: design, applications and future challenges. Nat Rev Genet 5(3):213–222
Bateson W (1894) Materials for the study of variation: treated with special regard to discontinuity in the origin of species; reprint 1992 with new introductory essays. London, Macmillan, reprinted Johns Hopkins press, Baltimore
Fleck L (1979) Genesis and development of a scientific fact. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Steup M (2018) Epistemology. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. E. Zalta. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Thompson DAW (1917) On growth and form. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Turing AM (1952) The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Bull Math Biol 237:37–72
Webster G, Goodwin B (1996) Form and transformation: generative and relational principles in biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Weiss K (2015) Survival of the safest. Evol Anthropol 24:220–224
Weiss KM (2017) Is precision medicine possible? Issues Sci Technol 34:37–42 (Fall 2017)
Weiss KM (2018) Genetic pointillism vs physiological form. Perspect Biol Med 61(4):503–516
Weiss K, Terwilliger JD (2000) How many diseases do you have to study to map one gene with SNPs? Nat Genet 26:151–158
Acknowledgements
For some of the general issues discussed here, readers may find these discussions useful: (Steup 2018) and (Bard and Rhe 2004). The views expressed here reflect my years of thinking about genetic causation and inference, influenced by many colleagues and students. However, these are my thoughts on current conditions in our science, not a consensus summary; reviewers are not complicit—and perhaps will write their own.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The relevant literature, hundreds of papers per month, would swamp any page limit, and be immediately dated. I only cite a few references that I deem most general and germane.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weiss, K.M. The Four Horsemen of the ‘Omicsalypse’: ontology, replicability, probability and epistemology. Hum Genet 139, 115–120 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-019-02007-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-019-02007-7