This comment made me wonder: what kinds of cases or research goals/questions would geneticists generally consider scientifically useful/interesting/valid when it comes to looking at the genomes of long-dead famous people?

By the way, how is it possible to watch the actual documentary? (Outside the UK)

I'm not generally against sequencing "named" individuals. E.g. Work on Beethoven's genome has been reasonable and interesting.

This particular case is shameful because the underlying narrative is that the Holocaust and other horrors could be explained by a bad gene.

Right. Also, the distribution of any PRS in Austrians may differ from that of Danes.

But these details (which may appear in a future publication) are technical. Doing this project and analysis in the first place is much more disturbing.

3. From what's been reported so far, it seems that the important values of engagement with the community/victims/their descendants unfortunately don't apply to all human populations.

I generally agree, although the lead researcher in this case is usually reliable.

Overall, nothing new or entirely unexpected, but I think evidence is starting to mount that PRS are not too clinically useful the way they are currently marketed by researchers and companies.

The results show, consistently with previous studies, a significant but very small improvement in AUC (Delta~0.01).

Interesting to also see this paper, attempting to predict 10-year myocardial infarction using both PRS and non-genetic (NG) data.
www.nature.com/articles/s43...

The NG data was either established risk factors or learned from a high-dim dataset. Prediction used logistic regression/neural network.

The actual numbers show that all health outcomes improved, with some outcomes very close to significance. So the headline is a bit misleading. But the effect sizes are nevertheless very small, particularly that they are likely to diminish over time.

At the bone marrow, triploidy provided the child with a "natural gene therapy", because the triploid cells had two X chrs, including one not carrying the mutation.

This gave the triploid lineage a growth advantage, and over time, it took over the bone marrow and rescued hematopoiesis.

Turns out, as an early embryo, one of his cells incorporated the second polar body. That cell became triploid, carrying two copies of the maternal genome.

The embryo retained this lineage and continued to develop with low frequency mosaic triploidy.

My understanding (anecdote-based, not scientific) is that people do have an innate hand preference, which is the phenotype of interest.
That being said, my anecdotal experience is that hand preference is much more on a continuous spectrum than binary.

I think this may be more like self-reporting errors... Weren't people forced to use their right hands in the early 20th century?