Mary Carmichael

In the last couple of weeks, two new papers have had genetics enthusiasts buzzing: one a study that turned up 95 gene variants linked to cholesterol levels, and the other a similarly designed study of personality traits that turned up no genes at all. There must be a reason the findings came out so differently.

The American Cancer Society has just launched a new nationwide print and online ad campaign to raise funds for a program that screens disadvantaged women for breast and cervical cancer. This does not sound controversial until you look at one of the ads.

After a week of soliciting experts, NEWSWEEK's Mary Carmichael is ready to decide whether or not she wants to take an at-home genetic test. Or is she?

The full transcript of Mary Carmichael's interview with FDA officials on the potential regulation of direct-to-consumer genetic tests.

Will increased regulation mean that at-home genetic tests will no longer be available to consumers? As rumors swirl about imminent action from the Food and Drug Administration, our writer wonders if she should hurry up and test her DNA.

In my weeklong quest to decide if I should have a genetic test, I now knew what I could expect to learn. But how was I going to feel about the results if I went forward and got them? Would I be able to trust them (and should I)?

On day two of her investigation, NEWSWEEK's Mary Carmichael asks five experts what information take-home DNA tests can and can't find.

More genetic testing information from around the Web.

As Congress grows closer to regulating direct-to-consumer DNA tests off the market, a NEWSWEEK reporter sets forth on a weeklong quest to determine if the tests are worth taking.

By the end of the week, writer Mary Carmichael will decide whether or not to take a direct-to-consumer genetic test. Here's more information about her project.

Popular Web outlet ScienceBlogs is still trying to recover from a botched corporate sponsorship with Pepsi. But while its bloggers slowly return to work, ScienceBlogs is also expanding a noncommercial deal with academic institutes that raises questions about what "editorial integrity" really means.

Malaria kills a million people a year, most of them kids and pregnant women. Why can’t we stop it? Here are some surprising conclusions—including pointed criticisms of current relief efforts as “quick fixes.” Plus, like the best infectious-disease lit, it’s a real creepfest.

Remember that study in the journal Science from last week linking a whole bunch of genes—including unexpectedly powerful ones—to extreme old age in centenarians? NEWSWEEK reported that some of outside experts thought it sounded too good to be true, perhaps because of an error in the way the genes were identified that could cause false-positive results.

A new study published in the journal Science found dozens of genes that appeared to affect whether humans can live to be 100 or older. But is the media overhyping the results?

This RV could change the face of health care in America and solve one of the most pressing problems facing the new health-care-reform law: how to expand access while controlling costs.

Treatment for drug addiction works better, and costs less, than imprisonment alone, but politically it’s easier to cut treatment than punishment.

Parents need not worry that the measles, mumps, and rubella injection will increase their children’s risk of autism, but kids given a vaccine that also protects against chicken pox have a slightly higher risk of developing febrile seizures, the scary if ultimately harmless phenomenon that accompanies a bad fever.

Any given antidepressant tends to help only about a third of patients. Now a new DNA test may be able to predict what medication will be most effective based on gene variants. Sounds promising, but does it work?

Fifty is the new thirty -- but that doesn’t mean that as you age, you can live like a college kid. Follow these simple steps to help ensure that you thrive for years to come. Plus: when should women get screened for breast cancer?