The convergence of increasingly efficient high-throughput genetic sequencing technology and ubiquitous Internet use has fueled the proliferation of companies that provide direct-to-consumer (DTC) personal genetic information. The emergence of consumer genetics reflects several shifts in the governance of genetic testing and management of human genetic data. This article discusses DTC genetics as a case study of neoliberalism and contemporary transformations in medicine that construe disease and its management through economic rationalities. At stake are shifts in subjectivities from “patient” to “consumer” and the meaning of being a “good citizen” in the context of precision medicine. Engaging concepts of biopower, biosociality, and biovalue in the public consumption of genetic information, this article analyzes DTC genetics and its effect on social connection, identity, and modes of participation in the production of biomedical knowledge and the management of health and risk.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. 23andMe. 2008. 23andMe struts its stuff in NYC during Fashion Week. 23andMe Blog Sept 11. https://blog.23andme.com/news/23andme-struts-its-stuff-in-nyc-during-fashion-week/#t5QyL16v8YhpRJYr.99 [Google Scholar]
  2. 23andMe. 2010. 23andMe and a new paradigm for research. 23andMe Blog June 22. http://spittoon.23andme.com/2010/06/22/23andme-and-a-new-paradigm-for-research/ [Google Scholar]
  3. 23andMe. 2016. The new 23andMe experience: a look at our trait reports. 23andMe Blog Jan. 5. https://blog.23andme.com/23andme-and-you/23andme-how-to/the-new-23andme-experience-a-look-at-our-trait-reports/#Dg8JTj0gW09zewyd.99 [Google Scholar]
  4. Abu El Haj N. 2007. The genetic reinscription of race. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 36:283–300 [Google Scholar]
  5. Avey L. 2009. Introducing a do-it-yourself revolution in disease research. Spittoon July 7. http://spittoon.23andme.com/2009/07/07/introducing-a-do-it-yourself-revolution-in-disease-research/ [Google Scholar]
  6. Ayo N. 2012. Understanding health promotion in a neoliberal climate and the making of health conscious citizens. Crit. Public Health 22:199–105 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolnick DA, Fullwiley D, Duster T, Cooper RS, Fujimura JH. et al. 2007. The science and business of genetic ancestry testing. Science 318:399–400 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bowker GC, Star SL. 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  9. Broom D, Whittaker A. 2004. Controlling diabetes, controlling diabetics: moral language in the management of diabetes type 2. Soc. Sci. Med. 58:112371–82 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown W. 2003. Neo-liberalism and the end of liberal democracy. Theory Event 7:1 [Google Scholar]
  11. Burke W, Coughlin SS, Lee NC, Weed DL, Khoury MJ. 2001. Application of population screening principles to genetic screening for adult-onset conditions. Genet. Test. 5:3201–11 [Google Scholar]
  12. Calhoun C. 2006. The privatization of risk. Public Cult 18:2257–63 [Google Scholar]
  13. Callon M, Rabeharisoa V. 2008. The growing engagement of emergent concerned groups in political and economic life: lessons from the French Association of Neuromuscular Disease Patients. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 33:230–61 [Google Scholar]
  14. Collins FS, Green ED, Guttmacher AE, Guyer MS. 2003. A vision for the future of genomics research. Nature 422:835–47 [Google Scholar]
  15. Corrigan O, Tutton R. 2006. What's in a name? Subjects, volunteers, participants and activists in clinical research. Clin. Ethics 1:101–4 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cox SM, McKellin W. 1999. ‘There's this thing in our family’: predictive testing and the construction of risk for Huntington disease. Sociol. Health Illn. 21:622–46 [Google Scholar]
  17. Darling KW, Ackerman SL, Hiatt RH, Lee SS-J, Shim JK. 2016. Enacting the molecular imperative: how gene-environment interaction research links bodies and environments in the post-genomic age. Soc. Sci. Med. 155:51–60 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dumit J. 2012. Drugs for Life: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Define Our Life Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  19. Epstein S. 2007. Inclusion: The Politics of Difference in Medical Research Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  20. Fortun M. 2008. Promising Genomics: Iceland and deCODE Genetics in a World of Speculation Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  21. Foucault M. 1991. Governmentality. The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality G Burchell, C Gordon, P Miller 87–104 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  22. Fujimura JH, Duster T, Rajagopalan R. 2008. Introduction: Race, genetics, and disease: questions of evidence, matters of consequence. Soc. Stud. Sci. 38:643–56 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fullwiley D. 2007. The molecularization of race: institutionalizing human difference in pharmacogenetics practice. Sci. As Cult. 16:11–30 [Google Scholar]
  24. Fullwiley D. 2008. The biologistical construction of race: “admixture” technology and the new genetic medicine. Soc. Stud. Sci. 38:5695–735 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gershon I. 2011. Neoliberal agency. Curr. Anthropol. 52:537–55 [Google Scholar]
  26. Getz LM. 1995. Biological determinism in the making of immigration policy in the 1920s. Int. Soc. Sci. Rev. 70:1/226–33 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gibbon S. 2007. Breast Cancer Genes and the Gendering of Knowledge: Science and Citizenship in the Cultural Context of the ‘New’ Genetics London: Palgrave MacMillan [Google Scholar]
  28. Gibbon S. 2008. Charity, breast cancer activism and the iconic figure of the BRCA carrier. See Gibbon & Novas 2008 19–37
  29. Gibbon S, Novas C. 2008. Biosocialities, Genetics and the Social Sciences: Making Biologies and Identities London/New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  30. Giddens A. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age London: Polity Press [Google Scholar]
  31. Goetz T. 2007. 23andMe will decode your DNA for $1,000. Welcome to the age of genomics. WIRED Mag Nov. 17. https://www.wired.com/2007/11/ff-genomics/ [Google Scholar]
  32. Gutierrez A. 2013. Warning letter Doc. No. GEN1300666, Nov. 22. http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2013/ucm376296.htm [Google Scholar]
  33. Hamilton JA. 2008. Revitalizing difference in the HapMap: race and contemporary human genetic variation research. J. Law Med. Ethics 36:471–77 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hartigan J Jr.. 2008. Is race still socially constructed? The recent controversy over race and medical genetics. Sci. As Cult. 17:163–93 [Google Scholar]
  35. Harvey D. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  36. Heath D, Rapp R, Taussig K-S. 2004. Genetic citizenship. A Companion to the Anthropology of Politics D Nugent, J Vincent 152–67 Malden, MA: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  37. Hoeyer K. 2004. Ambiguous gifts: public anxiety, informed consent and biobanks. Genetic Databases: Socio-Ethical Issues in the Collection and Use of DNA R Tutton, O Corrigan 97–116 London: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  38. Hogle LF. 2002. Claims and disclaimers: Whose expertise counts?. Med. Anthropol 21:3–4275–306 [Google Scholar]
  39. Horton S, Abadía C, Mulligan J, Thompson JJ. 2014. Critical Anthropology of Global Health “Takes a stand” statement: a critical medical anthropological approach to the U.S.’s Affordable Care Act. Med. Anthropol. Q 28:1–22 [Google Scholar]
  40. Howards HC, Borry P. 2009. Personal genome testing: Do you know what you are buying?. Am. J. Bioethics 9:11–13 [Google Scholar]
  41. ISOGG (Int. Soc. Genet. Geneal.). 2017. List of DNA testing companies ISOGG Wiki updated March 20. https://isogg.org/wiki/List_of_DNA_testing_companies [Google Scholar]
  42. Kahn J. 2006. Genes, race, and population: avoiding a collision of categories. Am. J. Public Health 96:111965–70 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kahn J. 2008. Exploiting race in drug development: BiDil's interim model of pharmacogenomics. Soc. Stud. Sci. 38:5737–58 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kaufman SR. 1994. Old age, disease, and the discourse on risk: geriatric assessment in U.S. health care. Med. Anthropol. Q 8:430–47 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kincaid J. 2009. 23andMe completes $27.8 million Series B round. TechCrunch Dec. 23. http://techcrunch.com/2009/12/23/23andme-funding/ [Google Scholar]
  46. Knorr Cetina K, Preda A. 2001. The epistemization of economic transactions. Curr. Sociol. 49:427–44 [Google Scholar]
  47. Koenig BA, Lee SS-J, Richardson S. 2008. Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age Stud. Med. Anthropol. Ser New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  48. Kymlicka W, Norman W. 1994. Return of the citizen: a survey of recent work on citizenship theory. Ethics 104:2352–81 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lee SS-J. 2013a. American DNA: the politics of potentiality in a genomic age. Spec. Issue The Anthropology of Potentiality: Exploring the Productivity of the Undefined and Its Interplay with Notions of Humanness in New Medical Practices. Curr. Anthropol 54:777–86 [Google Scholar]
  50. Lee SS-J. 2013b. Race, risk and recreation in personal genomics: the limits of play. Spec. Issue Public Health Genomics: Anthropological Interventions in the Quest for Molecular Medicine K-S Taussig, S Gibbons Med. Anthropol. Q 27:4550–69 [Google Scholar]
  51. Lee SS-J. 2015. Biobank as political artifact: the struggle over race in categorizing genetic difference. Spec. Issue Race, Racial Inequality, and Biological Determinism in the Genetic and Genomic Era WC Byrd, MH Hughey Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci 661:1143–59 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lee SS-J, Bolnick DB, Duster T, Ossorio P, Tallbear K. 2009. The illusive gold standard in genetic ancestry testing. Science 325:38–39 [Google Scholar]
  53. Lemke T. 2004. Disposition and determinism: genetic diagnostics in risk society. Sociol. Rev. 52:4550–66 [Google Scholar]
  54. Lombardo P. 2011. Eugenics laws restricting immigration Image Arch. Am. Eugen. Movem., Dolan DNA Learn. Cent., Cold Spring Harbor. Lab. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay9text.html [Google Scholar]
  55. Lombardo PA. 2009. Three generations, no imbeciles: eugenics, the Supreme Court. Buck v. Bell Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  56. Ludmerer KM. 1972. Genetics, eugenics, and the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924. Bull. Hist. Med. 46:159–81 [Google Scholar]
  57. Lupton D. 2006. Risk and governmentality. The Sociology of Risk and Gambling Reader JF Cosgrave , pp. 85–100 New York: Routledge Press [Google Scholar]
  58. Lupton D. 2013. The digitally engaged patient: self-monitoring and self-care in the digital health era. Soc. Theory Health 11:256–70 [Google Scholar]
  59. McGowan ML, Fishman JR, Lambrix MA. 2010. Personal genomics and individual identities: motivations and moral imperatives of early adopters. N. Genet. Soc. 29:3261–90 [Google Scholar]
  60. Mitchell R, Waldby C. 2010. National biobanks: clinical labor, risk production, and the creation of biovalue. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 35:3330–55 [Google Scholar]
  61. Montoya MJ. 2007. Bioethnic conscription: genes, race, and Mexicana/o ethnicity in diabetes research. Cult. Anthropol. 22:194–128 [Google Scholar]
  62. Mordor Intell. 2016. North America Genetic Testing Market - Industry Analysis and Market Forecast 2016–2021 Nov Hyderabad, India: Mordor Intell. [Google Scholar]
  63. Nelkin D. 2001. Molecular metaphors: the gene in popular discourse. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2:555–59 [Google Scholar]
  64. Nelson A. 2008. BioScience: genetic genealogy testing and the pursuit of African ancestry. Soc. Stud. Sci. 38:5759–83 [Google Scholar]
  65. Nelson A. 2016. The Social Life of DNA: Race, Reparations, and Reconciliation After the Genome New York: Beacon [Google Scholar]
  66. Novas C. 2006. The political economy of hope: patients’ organizations, science and biovalue. BioSocieties 1:3289–305 [Google Scholar]
  67. Ong A. 2007. Neoliberalism as a mobile technology. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 32:3–8 [Google Scholar]
  68. Ossorio P, Duster T. 2005. Race and genetics: controversies in biomedical, behavioral, and forensic sciences. Am. Psychol. 60:1115–28 [Google Scholar]
  69. Pálsson G. 2009. Biosocial relations of production. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 51:2288–313 [Google Scholar]
  70. Panofsky A. 2011. Generating sociability to drive science: patient advocacy organizations and genetics research. Soc. Stud. Sci. 41:131–57 [Google Scholar]
  71. Petersen A. 1997. Risk, governance and the new public health. Foucault, Health and Medicine A Petersen, R Bunton 189–206 London: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  72. Peterson AR, Lupton D. 1996. The New Public Health: Health and Self in the Age of Risk London: SAGE [Google Scholar]
  73. Porter D. 2008. The social contract of health in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries: individuals, corporations, and state. Shifting Boundaries of Public Health: Europe in the Twentieth Century SG Solomon, L Murard, P Zylberman 45–62 Rochester, NY: Univ. Rochester Press [Google Scholar]
  74. Prainsack B, Reardon J, Hindmarsh R, Gottweis H, Naue U, Lunshof JE. 2008. Personal genomes: misdirected precaution. Nature 456:34–35 [Google Scholar]
  75. Rabinow P. 1992. Artificiality and enlightenment: from sociobiology to biosociality. Incorporations J Crary, S Kwinter 234–52 New York: Zone Books [Google Scholar]
  76. Rapp R. 1995. Ricky business: genetic counseling in a shifting world. Articulating Hidden Histories: Exploring the Influence of Eric R. Wolf by J Schneider, R Rapp 175–89 Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  77. Reardon J. 2009. Race to the Finish: Identity and Governance in an Age of Genomics Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  78. Reardon J, TallBear K. 2012. “Your DNA is our history”: genomics, anthropology, and the construction of whiteness as property. Curr. Anthropol. 53:5s233–45 [Google Scholar]
  79. Rose N. 2007. The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  80. Rose N, Novas C. 2005. Biological citizenship. Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems A Ong, S Collier 439–63 Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  81. Salkin A. 2008. When in doubt, spit it out. New York Times Sept. 12. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/fashion/14spit.html [Google Scholar]
  82. Sankar P, Cho MK, Condit CM, Hunt LM, Koenig B. et al. 2004. Genetic research and health disparities. JAMA 291:242985–89 [Google Scholar]
  83. Schudson M. 1999. The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  84. Selden S. 2005. Transforming better babies into fitter families: archival resources and the history of the American eugenics movement, 1908–1930. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 149:2199–225 [Google Scholar]
  85. Shim JK, Darling KW, Lappe MD, Thomson LK, Lee SS-L, Hiatt R, Ackerman S. 2014. Homogeneity and heterogeneity as situational properties: producing—and moving beyond?—race in post-genomic science. Soc. Stud. Sci. 44:4579–99 [Google Scholar]
  86. Silicon Val. Bus. J. 2009. 23andMe completes $27.8 funding. Silicon Valley Business Journal Dec. 24. http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2009/12/21/daily46.html?jst=pn_pn_lk [Google Scholar]
  87. Smith-Nonini S. 2006. Conceiving the health commons: operationalizing a “right” to health. Soc. Anal. 50:233–45 [Google Scholar]
  88. Sunder Rajan K. 2006. Biocapital: The Constitution of Postgenomic Life Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  89. Tallbear K. 2013. Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press [Google Scholar]
  90. Taussig K-S, Rapp R, Heath D. 2003. Flexible eugenics: technologies of the self in the age of genetics. Genetic Nature/Culture: Anthropology and Science Beyond the Two Culture Divide AH Goodman, D Heath, MS Lindee 58–76 Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  91. Terry SF, Terry PF, Rauen KA, Uitto J, Bercovitch LG. 2007. Advocacy groups as research organizations: the PXE International example. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8:157–64 [Google Scholar]
  92. Timmermans S, Buchbinder M. 2010. Patients-in-waiting: living between sickness and health in the genomics era. J. Health Soc. Behav. 51:4408–23 [Google Scholar]
  93. Tobin SL, Cho MK, Lee SS-J, Magnus DC, Allyse M. et al. 2012. Customers or research participants? Guidance for research practices in commercialization of personal genomics. Genet. Med. 14:833–35 [Google Scholar]
  94. Tsosie R. 2007. Cultural challenges to biotechnology: Native American genetic resources and the concept of cultural harm. J. Law Med. Ethics 35:3396–411 [Google Scholar]
  95. Tutton R, Prainsack B. 2011. Enterprising or altruistic selves? Making up research subjects in genetics research. Sociol. Health Illn. 33:1081–95 [Google Scholar]
  96. US Food Drug Admin. 2017. FDA allows marketing of first direct-to-consumer tests that provide genetic risk information for certain conditions News Release Apr. 6. https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm551185.htm [Google Scholar]
  97. Waldby C, Mitchell R. 2006. Tissue Economies: Blood, Organs, and Cell Lines in Late Capitalism Durham, NC/London: Duke Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  98. White House. 2015. FACT SHEET: President Obama's Precision Medicine Initiative Off. Press Secr. Press Release Jan. 30. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/30/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-precision-medicine-initiative [Google Scholar]
  99. Wilson JMG, Junger F. 1968. Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease Public Health Pap. 34 Geneva: World Health Organ http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/37650/17/WHO_PHP_34.pdf [Google Scholar]
  100. Wojcicki A. 2009. Research participants have a right to their own genetic data. Spittoon Nov. 4. http://spittoon.23andme.com/2009/11/04/let-research-participants-access-their-genomes/ [Google Scholar]
  101. Wojcicki A. 2012. One million strong, a note from 23andMe's Anne Wojcicki. 23andMe Blog Dec. 11. https://blog.23andme.com/news/one-million-strong-a-note-from-23andmes-anne-wojcicki/#hxXBWUxg4hm3utWx.99 [Google Scholar]
  102. Wojcicki A. 2013. An update regarding the FDA's letter to 23andMe. 23andMe Blog Nov. 26. https://blog.23andme.com/news/an-update-regarding-the-fdas-letter-to-23andme/#j2vEoeb875KHJkXT.99 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error