A couple of months ago I (with Sarah Greer Rodock) published a paper, linked HERE, about the Spit for Science program at Virginia Commonwealth University.
I will start by mentioning that I am not a part of the above mentioned project (preregistered here: https://osf.io/b3swh/, ClincialTrials.gov ID: NCT06287203).
From what I understand this project involves using the work we did previously (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01801-6), with the goal of understanding whether receiving feedback about one's risk (broadly conceived) has any impact on real world behavior change related to substance use.
Importantly, while the project website may be framed in the language of genetics, the preregistration notes that: "Our research team will combine the PGS with the behavioral/environmental data to generate risk estimates." So my guess is that the environmental and behavioral/clinical risk index will account for the lion's share of the variance (same as it did in the original paper). Should the focus on social and environmental risk factors be more apparent in the website? Probably. But the point about student's being given information about their "genetic risk" is inaccurate.
There a lot of valid criticisms to level at the field of psychiatric genetics, but those criticism should be about what is actually being done. That is not the case for the project listed here.
I will start by mentioning that I am not a part of the above mentioned project (preregistered here: https://osf.io/b3swh/, ClincialTrials.gov ID: NCT06287203).
From what I understand this project involves using the work we did previously (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01801-6), with the goal of understanding whether receiving feedback about one's risk (broadly conceived) has any impact on real world behavior change related to substance use.
Importantly, while the project website may be framed in the language of genetics, the preregistration notes that: "Our research team will combine the PGS with the behavioral/environmental data to generate risk estimates." So my guess is that the environmental and behavioral/clinical risk index will account for the lion's share of the variance (same as it did in the original paper). Should the focus on social and environmental risk factors be more apparent in the website? Probably. But the point about student's being given information about their "genetic risk" is inaccurate.
There a lot of valid criticisms to level at the field of psychiatric genetics, but those criticism should be about what is actually being done. That is not the case for the project listed here.
Go back and reread the top of the web page, which as I said is all I know.
First words: DNA discovery.
Then, What's in your genes?
Don't tell me this project isn't supposed to be about genetic risk.