|
Since the 1990s many promises have been made about economic benefits available from genome scanning. We were assured that we would be able to look at an animal's genes and determine its genetic merit directly. Of course this included the assumption, generally implied, that we would have already determined the effects of all the (important) genes, at all times and under all circumstances. However, despite numerous 'in silico' proofs, it seems that ascertaining these effects is proving much more elusive than originally assumed. We did not comprehend how much data we would need. By mating the best to the best, we have been 'improving' domesticated species for millenia. We keep getting more sophisticated about determining what is 'best' but genetic improvement was achieved long before the mechanism of inheritance was understood. Despite shortcomings in our understanding of quantitative genetic variation (e.g. the search for the missing heritability), these methods are highly effective. Furthermore, these methods of genetic evaluation use no explicit knowledge of individual gene action. The question remains: 'Will such knowledge make predictions more accurate?' |
|