It seems increasingly common for us to be developing tests for things we cannot treat anyway. I wouldn't argue that we shouldn't develop such tests, however the significance of the test's development is debatable at best. I would agree that I don't want to know whether or not I have risks for something I couldn't do anything about anyway. That sounds like a way to increase people's stress levels worring about something that may or may not occur (or even will occur with certainty, but at an unknown time in the future). Some will argue it's better to know, however I'm almost certain the only outcome of having test results like this available is insurance companies having a reason to say you have a pre-existing condition and screw you for coverage and/or rates. If you never knew you were at higher risk, you'd still end up with the disease (or not) but won't have been bent over in the meantime. I know which way I'd go (mind you I'm the sort of person who never wants to be lying under a bus regretting I've been eating tofu for dinner for years when I'd rather have had steak). -- ~AC