How much can a large population study on genes, environments, their interactions and common diseases contribute to the health of the American people?

I offer a critical perspective on a large-scale population study on gene-environment interactions and common diseases proposed by the US Secretary of Health and Human Services' Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society (SACGHS). I argue that for scientific and policy reasons this and similar studies have little to add to current knowledge about how to prevent, treat, or decrease inequalities in common diseases, all of which are major claims of the proposal. I use diabetes as an exemplar of the diseases that the study purports to illuminate. I conclude that the question is not whether the study will meet expectations or whether the current emphasis on a genetic paradigm is real or imagined, desirable or not. Rather, the question is why, given the flaws of the science underwriting the study, its assumptions remain unchallenged. Future research should investigate the reasons for this immunity from criticism and for the popularity of this and similar projects among laypersons as well as among intellectuals.