"There's no question that we're in a transition period where clearly we have to think these issues through," says Dr. Kenneth Offit, chief of the clinical-genetics service at Sloan-Kettering. "But it's a miraculous eventuality that when people get sick you can explain why it happened. Think of it this way. It's December 7 and you're in Pearl Harbor. You know the planes are coming, you know from which direction they're coming, and you can turn on the radar. You may not shoot down every one, but think of the impact."

The less appealing version of that metaphor is the one that may come a little closer to the current reality as it concerns BRCA 1 and 2. You're in Pearl Harbor, you know the attack is coming, but you're not sure on which day and you have no ammunition to fire at the incoming planes anyway. "Keep in mind," says Offit, who discovered the most common BRCA 2 mutation, "that the twelve or so genes that we've uncovered that cause disease have pretty much all been found in the last five years. That should give you some idea of the pace of the research. Our best-case scenario when BRCA 1 was discovered was we'd have a relatively simple test that would provide the opportunity to save lives. And that's exactly what's happened."

Angela waited a year after her initial genetic-counseling session to have her blood drawn. In the meantime, she persuaded her lone surviving aunt to go in and be tested. This was critical. In families with a pattern of inherited cancer, the most effective way to test those who don't have cancer is to first find the genetic defect in a relative who does. This way, researchers know what they're looking for. While there are several common defects -- most Jewish women of Ashkenazi descent who are affected have one of three mutations; that's why they're so easy to screen -- some families have mutations that are unique to them.

Consequently, unless doctors first identify the genetic marker in a family member who's sick, a negative test result is not conclusive. It can simply mean the testers missed the defect. BRCA 1 and 2 are very large, complex genes. When researchers know what defect they're looking for, it's as if they've been told to find a misspelled word on page 367 in volume B of the encyclopedia. Otherwise, it's as if they've been told there's a misspelled word somewhere in the encyclopedia. Find it.

"My aunt has a daughter who also got tested and she turned out to be negative," Angela says. "And I began to think, Wow, maybe there's a chance I could beat this thing. It hadn't really occurred to me until I started the genetic-counseling process that there was even a chance I could be negative."

So, in the middle of the summer of 1997, Angela had her blood drawn. Several weeks later, the day after she and her husband returned from California, she got a call to come in for her results. "I knew at that moment I'd tested positive. I knew that a negative result could be given over the phone. Otherwise they wanted to see you, to present the various options."

But Angela already knew what she was going to do. "The disease had been an albatross around my neck for years. I'd watched all these women in my family get sick. I watched them go bald and suffer from chemo and radiation. I'd watched them not be able to lift their arms after surgeries. And maybe even worst of all, I'd watched them get sick not once but twice. They'd be diagnosed with cancer in one breast, and just as they'd gotten better and built themselves up they'd get knocked down again with a diagnosis two or three years later in the other breast. Close to 60 percent of all inherited breast cancers are bilateral. And, of course, I'd watched them all die, including two of my cousins who were only in their thirties," Angela says without even a hint of tremor in her voice.