ArticleBMC medical ethics2016
23andMe: a new two-sided data-banking market model.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Sharing behavior and health care utilization following direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a systematic review.Open research Europe · 2025Pooled it
- Combined analysis of keratinocyte cancers identifies novel genome-wide loci.Human molecular genetics · 2019Pooled it
- Haplotype-based Parallel PBWT for Biobank Scale Data.IEEE ... International Conference on Computational Advances in Bio and Medical Sciences : [proceedings]. IEEE International Conference on Computational Advances in Bio and Medical Sciences · 2026Article
- RaPID2: a parallel scalable framework for identity-by-descent segment detection via parallel PBWT.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- When genomics companies act as biobanks: governance challenges in an era of genomic assetization.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Article
- Multidisciplinary stakeholder-informed identification of key characteristics for implementation of workplace genetic testing.HGG advances · 2025Article
- Genetic Testing: practical dos and don'ts for cats.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2024Review
- Big data in sarcoidosis.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2024Review
- Future-proofing genomic data and consent management: a comprehensive review of technology innovations.GigaScience · 2024Review
- Infrastructuring Educational Genomics: Associations, Architectures, and Apparatuses.Postdigital science and education · 2024Article
- Toward a More Just System of Care in Molecular Pathology.The Milbank quarterly · 2022Article
- Ethics of Buying DNA.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2022Article
- Shared genetic loci between depression and cardiometabolic traits.PLoS genetics · 2022Article
- Incomplete Penetrance and Variable Expressivity: From Clinical Studies to Population Cohorts.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
- The Skeleton in the Closet: Faults and Strengths of Public Versus Private Genetic Biobanks.Biomolecules · 2020Article
- iDASH secure genome analysis competition 2018: blockchain genomic data access logging, homomorphic encryption on GWAS, and DNA segment searching.BMC medical genomics · 2020Article
- Inference attacks against differentially private query results from genomic datasets including dependent tuples.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- European citizens' perspectives on direct-to-consumer genetic testing: an updated systematic review.European journal of public health · 2020Article
- Valuable Genomes: Taxonomy and Archetypes of Business Models in Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince 2006, the genetic testing company 23andMe has collected biological samples, self-reported information, and consent documents for biobanking and research from more than 1,000,000 individuals (90% participating in research), through a direct-to-consumer (DTC) online genetic-testing service providing a genetic ancestry report and a genetic health report. However, on November 22, 2013, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) halted the sale of genetic health testing, on the grounds that 23andMe was not acting in accordance with federal law, by selling tests of undemonstrated reliability as predictive tests for medical risk factors. Consumers could still obtain the genetic ancestry report, but they no longer had access to the genetic health report in the United States (US). However, this did not prevent the company from continuing its health research, with previously obtained and future samples, provided that consent had been obtained from the consumers concerned, or with health reports for individuals from other countries. Furthermore, 23andMe was granted FDA authorization on February 19, 2015, first to provide reports about Bloom syndrome carrier status, and, more recently, to provide consumers with "carrier status" information for 35 genes known (with high levels of confidence) to cause disease. DISCUSSION: In this Debate, we highlight the likelihood that the primary objective of the company was probably two-fold: promoting itself within the market for predictive testing for human genetic diseases and ancestry at a low cost to consumers, and establishing a high-value database/biobank for research (one of the largest biobanks of human deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and personal information). By dint of this marketing approach, a two-sided market has been established between the consumer and the research laboratories, involving the establishment of a database/DNA biobank for scientific and financial gain. We describe here the profound ethical issues raised by this setup.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.