In one, gene sequencing firm Complete Genomics announced that it had sequenced a whole human genome for $1,700 — a significant turn in the race to deliver an affordable, high-quality readout of a person’s entire DNA sequence.

In the other, members of a family known to carry a hereditary form of colon cancer discuss getting a genetic test — and some say they’d rather not know. “If it came back positive,” said one, “I think I would feel like it would be some kind of countdown.’’

People in the genetics world know that genetic information can provide valuable health insights now, and that many more will be found. To them, the idea of a full genome analysis is fascinating.

But out there in non-genetics land, others aren’t so sure. Many people continue to believe that DNA determines one’s fate, despite all the evidence to the contrary. For most of us, genetics is only one of several important factor in our health. But in the realm of ideas, the messages of Gattaca still hold sway.

That dictomy is what makes genetics so fascinating, and so difficult to bring to everyday life. The prospect of personal genetic knowledge hits people at a deeply personal, emotional level, raising issues of identity, free will, and one’s hopes for the future. Many people aren’t sure they want to throw a DNA readout into that mix.

In an excellent commentary last week, Hank Greely, an expert in the legal and social issues surrounding genetics,  pointed out all the ways that we’re not ready to handle genetic knowledge. I’d take it one step further — I’m not sure many people are ready even to discover their genetic makeup, let alone figure out how to handle the information once they have it.

When the low-cost genome race is won, it won’t ultimately be genomes that are sequenced, but people. Without more accounting for the human factor, that fact may leave those in the sequencing competition wondering where to go after they’ve crossed the finish line.

Some answers to this dilemma are out there, in the communities of people who’ve already made important decisions based on genetic information. We’ll talk more about some of those solutions in upcoming posts.

Now, as new tools to reveal these differences emerge, the JAMA article encourages researchers and clinicians to rethink screening for breast and prostate cancer.

Breast and prostate cancers now account for 26 percent of cancers in the United States.  However, in the last 20 years, it may be this increase in numbers reflects detection of low-risk growths that may never become dangerously cancerous.

One of the options the JAMA authors present is to focus on developing (and validating) markers that will identify significant from minimal risk cancers. These markers could target either the tissues that may be growing abnormally or the inherited genetic variants that may offer a person protection against these cancers. In Chapter 5 of our book, we discuss the differences between the genetic mutations that are a function of an abnormal cell line on the way to developing cancer, and genetic mutations that are inherited. It could be exciting to use genomics to direct personalized screening.

In this day and age of increasing health care costs, about $20 billion is spent to screen for breast and prostate cancer yearly. As new biomarkers are found and validated, the number of people who need screening or aggressive treatment might be reduced, and with it, the anxiety associated with hearing the word “cancer.”

Not sure how to pronounce “mitochondria“? Want to listen to human genome expert (and current NIH director) Francis Collins serve as your own personal talking genetics dictionary, defining concepts such as “personalized medicine“? Federal gene geeks at the National Human Genome Research Institute have unveiled their latest online talking glossary of gene-speak.

It’s interesting to see which terms made the cut — and which didn’t.

You’ll find the essential terms of genetics, such as “base pair” or “X-linked.” Some terms that relate to broader health-related concepts, such as “pharmacogenomics,” are also included. But only a few actual health conditions made the list. You’ll find some rare disorders widely known to be genetic, such as Huntington’s Disease and hemophilia. And there’s a scattering of common health conditions where genetic factors have been fairly well identified, including diabetes and prostate cancer.

Lots of other common conditions were left out. Where, for example, is breast cancer? The glossary does include the BRCA gene variants, but doesn’t include breast cancer itself, even though other BRCA is far from being the only genetic factor involved in breast cancer. Nor does the glossary include colon cancer. The genetics of these conditions are fairly well understood,  both in terms of rarer single-gene factors and more common multi-gene factors. And these diseases affect hundreds of thousands of people. If you are going to help people understand the role that genetics can play in health, these aren’t conditions you want to leave out of a new public education campaign.

If you’ve got other nominations for terms or conditions to include, please weigh in! At the bottom of the glossary index page, you’ll find a link that lets you suggest terms directly to the glossary minders. Or you can post a comment here or email us, and we’ll gather suggestions and submit them.

You’ll find many of the same terms defined in our book. We talk about genetic factors and issues in diabetes in Chapter 4, and a variety of cancers in Chapter 5.

And if you’d rather have your genetic terms defined in silence, NGHRI has a text-based glossary as well.

Today’s announcement of the discovery of a new set of genetic markers related to prostate cancer has health officials paying attention — across the Atlantic, at least.

Genetic research firm deCODE, based in Iceland, announced that its researchers had discovered four new genetic factors linked to prostate cancer. Furthermore, the company said, testing a broad group of men for these and other variants linked to the disease revealed which men were at especially high risk.

deCODE, which sells a prostate cancer genetic risk test, has a clear interest in seeing this type of testing become more common, especially as the firm struggles finanically. But the results are also gaining the attention of doctors and public health experts. That’s because prostate cancer screening is tricky.

The test used most often in the United States, the PSA screen, isn’t all that reliable. More conclusive tests, such as a biopsy, are invasive and more expensive.

In Great Britain, PSA screening is offered only to men with a family history of prostate cancer. As health officials in that country look for better ways to screen, a leading newspaper suggested that deCODE’s new findings might lead to a national genetic screening program.

It’s unlikely that the United States will make a similar move any time soon. But if prostate cancer runs in your family, what would you do? Stick with PSA? Would you considered any genetic tests?

In our book, we talk about genetic factors in prostate cancer and other types of cancer in Chapter 5.