Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27059184›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2016

23andMe: a new two-sided data-banking market model.

Henri-Corto Stoeklé, Marie-France Mamzer-Bruneel, Guillaume Vogt, Christian Hervé

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Genetic Testing: practical dos and don'ts for cats.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2024
    Review
  9. Big data in sarcoidosis.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2024
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Ethics of Buying DNA.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Henri-Corto StoekléMedical Ethics and Legal Medicine Laboratory EA4569, Paris Descartes University, Centre Universitaire des Saints-Pères, Paris, France.
Marie-France Mamzer-BruneelMedical Ethics and Legal Medicine Laboratory EA4569, Paris Descartes University, Centre Universitaire des Saints-Pères, Paris, France.
Guillaume VogtMedical Ethics and Legal Medicine Laboratory EA4569, Paris Descartes University, Centre Universitaire des Saints-Pères, Paris, France. guillaume.vogt@inserm.fr.
Christian HervéMedical Ethics and Legal Medicine Laboratory EA4569, Paris Descartes University, Centre Universitaire des Saints-Pères, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Conflict of InterestInformed ConsentMarketingPrivate SectorBiological Specimen BanksBiomedical ResearchBloom SyndromeDNAGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHumansReproducibility of ResultsRisk FactorsUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationDNABiobankingData bankingDirect-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testingEthical issuesResearchServiceTwo-sided markets

Identifiers

PMID27059184
PMCPMC4826522

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.