The ethics of direct-to-consumer genetic testing
By Laurie Udesky,
The Lancet
| 10. 23. 2010
A report into a 1-year investigation of genetic testing firms selling directly to consumers by the US General Accounting Office (GAO) concluded in July that test results were “misleading, and of little or no practical use”. As a result of the investigation, the US Food and Drug Administration is in the process of tightening regulations for firms that sell home genetic testing kits.
On their websites the direct-to-consumer genetic firms look authoritative: they encourage customers to consult their doctors or seek genetic counselling before and after results, ask customers to sign informed consent forms, and provide information on the ostensible scientific validity of the results they provide. But the GAO report describes how 15 companies responded to inquiries from five undercover consumers who had submitted their DNA samples for testing. GAO investigators found “egregious examples” of deceptive marketing, in addition to poor or non-existent advice from supposed consultation experts. The report also raised concerns about privacy: what happens to your DNA once you send it to a private company? All these issues raise ethical concerns about providing genetic testing directly...
Related Articles
By Evelina Johansson Wilén, Jacobin | 01.18.2026
In her book The Argonauts, Maggie Nelson describes pregnancy as an experience marked by a peculiar duality. On the one hand, it is deeply transformative, bodily alien, sometimes almost incomprehensible to the person undergoing it. On the other hand...
By Daphne O. Martschenko and Julia E. H. Brown, Hastings Bioethics Forum | 01.14.2026
There is growing concern that falling fertility rates will lead to economic and demographic catastrophe. The social and political movement known as pronatalism looks to combat depopulation by encouraging people to have as many children as possible. But not just...
By Paula Siverino Bavio, BioNews | 01.12.2026
For more than ten years, gestational surrogacy in Uruguay existed in a state of legal latency: provided for by law, carefully regulated as an exception, yet without a single birth to make it real.
That situation changed with the arrival...
By Andrew Gregory, The Guardian | 01.11.2026
Google has removed some of its artificial intelligence health summaries after a Guardian investigation found people were being put at risk of harm by false and misleading information.
The company has said its AI Overviews, which use generative AI to...