Genes, Patents, and Big Business: at 23andMe, are you the Customer or the Product?
By Adrianne Jeffries,
The Verge
| 12. 12. 2012
Ethical questions swirl as the personal genetics company starts scaling up
It’s been six years since DNA testing service
23andMe launched. In that time, about 180,000 people around the world have sent their saliva to the Mountain View-based company to test for more than 200 genetic traits and markers.
That’s not an inconsequential number, but it shows that personal DNA testing just isn’t a very large market yet. As a result, 23andMe has decisively shifted its focus to building and monetizing a giant database of genetic information, rather than satisfying personal curiosity. We’re entering the era of personal genetics as big business.
The company announced yesterday that it has raised
$50 million from name-brand investors including Google Ventures and Russian billionaire Yuri Milner to do just that. 23andMe is run by Anne Wojcicki, who is a 10-year veteran of healthcare investing and the wife of Google cofounder Sergey Brin; she and her husband both plunked down cash as well.
It’s been a big year for the personal genetics industry. Last week, personal genetics testing provider deCODE Genetics was bought by biotech company Amgen for $415 million. Genetics diagnostics startup Navigenics was...
Related Articles
By Jonquilyn Hill, Vox | 10.18.2026
By Roxanne Khamsi, The Atlantic | 10.16.2026
In recent months, news came out about several distressing cases that have underscored the risks of gene therapy, which delivers DNA to a patient’s cells to treat disease. All of these cases have one thing in common that’s not apparent...
By Rebecca Roberts, The Scientist | 10.11.2026
Heritable genome editing in human embryos is once again under intense scrutiny after the publication of an opinion piece in Trends in Genetics at the end of last month.1 In the paper, Cathy Tie, the founder and chief...
By Alistair Sponsel and Brian Sutton, Springer Nature | 10.05.2026
This essay, co-authored by a historian of science and an X-ray crystallographer, sheds new light on Rosalind Franklin’s Photograph 51. We refute the infamous claim that, unlike James Watson, Franklin failed to see the picture’s potential significance for interpreting the...