DNA-testing folly

The public must be aware of privacy implications

In recent years, there has been a growing market for private companies that, for a fee, will analyze a person’s DNA and offer information about one’s ancestry or health predispositions. But, as these services become increasingly popular and more affordable, concerns about privacy have been growing.

23andMe, which has more than 5 million clients, is perhaps the most popular of these companies. For as little as $100 — other companies offer packages that start as low as $60 — 23andMe will analyze data saliva and offer insights into a customer’s genetic makeup.

But while most customers have used the service to learn something about their ancestry or health, law enforcement has found that these services can help them track down criminals.

In April 2018, California police arrested a man suspected of a prolific series of murders and rapes during the 1970s and 1980s. The man, dubbed the Golden State Killer, was identified when law enforcement officials linked his DNA to DNA posted on the website GEDmatch.

A relative of the suspect had voluntarily posted her own DNA to this website. Because the information is open to the public, law enforcement officials did not need a warrant to analyze the DNA, and this relative ultimately, and unwittingly, led police to her relative.

Many commended law enforcement’s action. But a few critics pondered both the ethics of such tactics as well as the implications of people posting their own DNA online without much thought for what can be done with that information.

With 23andMe’s announcement last month that they would be partnering with the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline, allowing the drug giant access to the 5 million DNA samples 23andMe has collected, concerns have grown further and more critics have emerged.

For its part, 23andMe is in the clear. It has maintained the right to hold customers’ DNA and do with it as they please. And, according to Anne Wojcicki, the company’s CEO and cofounder, 23andMe hopes its partnership with GlaxoSmithKline will resultin medical breakthroughs.

But average citizens must begin to ask themselves serious questions about what information they are willing to share with other people or with companies.

With the rise of social media, more and more people have grown comfortable sharing information about their real-time location, their personality and their various political or religious affiliations. But DNA is a foundational component of one’s humanity. Is this really the kind of information a person should entrust anyone — from the federal government to a private corporation — with using or storing responsibly?

23andMe and other like-minded websites have interesting uses, but people must begin to consider that the potential dangers outweigh the novelty.