On a block in SoHo known for high-end boutiques — the designers Helmut Lang, Anna Sui, and Catherine Malandrino have showrooms there — a temporary shop is promoting something of a different sort starting today: genetic testing.

For $2,500 and a sample of saliva, California-based Navigenics will screen for 17 diseases and conditions, including breast cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and type 2 diabetes. Testing is done off-site at a laboratory affiliated with the company.

“We don’t diagnose these diseases or conditions, we just let customers know their likelihood of developing the condition,” the company’s head of policy and business affairs, Amy DuRoss, said.

According to Ms. DuRoss, Navigenics — a Web-based genetic testing company that promotes at-home testing kits — will occupy the storefront at 76 Greene St. for 10 days. During that time, it is seeking to drum up business by hosting panel discussions on genetics and running other health programs.

The main focus is on the testing kits, which are mailed to customers. According to Ms. DuRoss, customers who send two teaspoons of saliva to the company’s laboratory will receive a risk assessment report within weeks. The report, accessible online, is password-protected for privacy. For emotional and psychological reasons, genetic counselors are available to talk to customers over the telephone.

Founded in 2006, Navigenics is part of a growing market for genetic testing stemming from the mapping of the human genome in 2003. Doctors said more knowledge about human genetics has boosted interest in screening for inherited diseases and conditions. “I’m bringing it up less, and they’re bringing it up more,” a gynecologic oncologist in private practice in Manhattan, Dr. Elizabeth Poynor, said when asked to describe the interest in genetic testing among her patients. “The dialogue now is being initiated, somewhat, by the patient. It’s not a surprise to them when I speak about genetic testing. They’re aware of it.”

In recent months, companies such as Navigenics have begun marketing genetic tests directly to consumers.

Despite the benefit of screening for some diseases, many doctors have raised questions about the clinical and analytic validity of athome testing. In recent months, several prominent medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and the American Journal of Human Genetics, featured articles expressing such concerns.

Last month, in the Journal of the American Medical Association, an oncologist at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Dr. Kenneth Offit, warned: “Health professionals are now faced with the prospect of patients coming to the office, DNA profile in hand, asking for preventive management tailored to their specific disease risks.”

Dr. Offit, who is chief of clinical genetics at Sloan-Kettering, said that if left unregulated, the home testing model could produce harmful results. “In the worse-case scenario, the paths may lead to unnecessary medical interventions or false reassurances and missed diagnoses,” he wrote.

To a large degree, some doctors said patients might misinterpret the results.

“If you came into my office, I wouldn’t recommend this to you,” the director of the human genetics program at NYU Medical Center, Dr. Harry Ostrer, said. The results “may amplify your risk in a way that isn’t really meaningful to you, so learning about a slight increase in risk might increase your anxiety, but it won’t change anything you’re doing right now to try to prevent the disease from occurring.”

Dr. Ostrer, who said his program sees about 800 patients each year who are concerned about developing breast or ovarian cancer, said companies were cashing in on the excitement of genetic testing by selling home testing kits. “It runs the risk of disillusioning the public, who will say, you sold snake oil to me,” he said.

From a physician’s perspective, counseling also can be lost during the self-test experience.

“It’s a double edged sword when you market the test kit directly to patients,” Dr. Poynor, who has a Ph.D. in molecular biology and genetics, said. “My concern would be that the message will get lost in translation over e-mail and over the computer,” she said.

Ms. DuRoss stressed that Navigenics’s tests did not provide a diagnosis. She said Navigenics does not screen for diseases such as Sickle Cell anemia or the neurological disease Huntington’s Disease, because in those cases screening amounts to a definite verdict. “We’re more focused on prevention,” she said.