Little is known about how consumers of direct-to-consumer personal genetic services share personal genetic risk information. In an age of ubiquitous online networking and rapid development of social networking tools, understanding how consumers share personal genetic risk assessments is critical in the development of appropriate and effective policies. This exploratory study investigates how consumers share personal genetic information and attitudes towards social networking behaviors. Methods: Adult participants aged 23 to 72 years old who purchased direct-to-consumer genetic testing from a personal genomics company were administered a web-based survey regarding their sharing activities and social networking behaviors related to their personal genetic test results. Results: 80 participants completed the survey; of those, 45% shared results on Facebook and 50.9% reported meeting or reconnecting with more than 10 other individuals through the sharing of their personal genetic information. For help interpreting test results, 70.4% turned to Internet websites and online sources, compared to 22.7% who consulted their healthcare providers. Amongst participants, 51.8% reported that they believe the privacy of their personal genetic information would be breached in the future. Conclusion: Consumers actively utilize online social networking tools to help them share and interpret their personal genetic information. These findings suggest a need for careful consideration of policy recommendations in light of the current ambiguity of regulation and oversight of consumer initiated sharing activities.
References
[1]
Manson, N.C. What is genetic information, and why is it significant? A contextual, contrastive approach. J. Appl. Philos. 2006, 23, 1–16, doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2006.00317.x.
[2]
Nelkin, D.; Lindee, M.S. The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon; University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2004; p. 60.
[3]
McGowan, M.L.; Fishman, J.R.; Lambrix, M.A. Personal genomics and individual identities: Motivations and moral imperatives of early users. New Genet. Soc. 2010, 29, 261–290, doi:10.1080/14636778.2010.507485.
[4]
Helgason, A.; Stafansson, K. The past, present and future of direct-to-consumer genetic tests. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 2010, 12, 61–68.
Foster, M.W.; Sharp, R.R. Out of sequence: How consumer genomics could displace clinical genetics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2008, 9, e419, doi:10.1038/nrg2374.
[7]
Evans, J.P.; Burke, W.; Khoury, M. The rules remain the same for genomic medicine: The case against “reverse genetic exceptionalism”. Genet. Med. 2010, 12, 342–343, doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181deb308.
[8]
Hogarth, S.; Javitt, G.; Melzer, D. The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Legal, ethical and policy issues. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 2008, 9, 161–182, doi:10.1146/annurev.genom.9.081307.164319.
[9]
Frueh, F.W.; Greely, H.T.; Green, R.C.; Hogarth, S.; Siegel, S. The future of direct-to-consumer clinical genetic tests. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2011, 12, 511–515.
Annas, J.P.; Giovanni, M.A.; Murray, M.F. Risks of presymptomatic direct-to-consumer genetic testing. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 363, 1100–1101.
[15]
Imai, K.; Kricka, L.J.; Fortina, P. Concordance study of 3 direct-to-consumer genetic testing services. Clin. Chem. 2011, 57, 518–521, doi:10.1373/clinchem.2010.158220.
[16]
Ng, P.C.; Murray, S.S.; Levy, S.; Venter, J.C. An agenda for personalized medicine. Nature 2009, 461, 724–726, doi:10.1038/461724a.
[17]
Dyo, R.A. Cascade effects of medical technology. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2002, 23, 23–44.
[18]
McGuire, A.L.; Burke, W. Health system implications of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Public Health Genom. 2011, 14, 53–58, doi:10.1159/000321962.
Bloss, C.S.; Wineingar, N.; Darst, B.F.; Schork, N.J.; Topol, E.J. Impact of direct-to-consumer genomic testing at long term follow-up. J. Med. Genet. 2013, 50, 393–400.
[21]
Gollust, S.E.; Gordon, E.S.; Zayac, C.; Griffin, G.; Christman, M.F.; Pyeritz, R.E.; Wawak, L.; Bernhardt, B.A. Motivation and perceptions of early adoptors of personalized genomics: Perspectives from research participants. Public Health Genom. 2012, 15, 22–30, doi:10.1159/000327296.
[22]
Leighton, J.W.; Valverde, K.; Bernhardt, B.A. The general public’s understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic test results. Public Health Genom. 2012, 15, 11–21, doi:10.1159/000327159.
[23]
Vernez, S.; Salari, K.; Ormond, K.E.; Lee, S.S.J. The ethics of personal genome testing: Student experiences with genotyping in the classroom. Genet. Med. 2013, 5, e24.
[24]
Reid, R.J.; McBride, C.M.; Alford, S.H.; Price, C.; Baxevanis, A.D.; Brody, L.C.; Larson, E.B. Association between health-service use and multiplex genetic testing. Genet. Med. 2012, 14, 852–859, doi:10.1038/gim.2012.52.
[25]
Lee, S.S.-J.; Crawley, L. Research 2.0: Social networking and direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomics. Am. J. Bioeth. 2009, 9, 35–44.
[26]
Dolgin, E. Personalized investigation. Nat. Med. 2010, 16, 953–955, doi:10.1038/nm0910-953.
[27]
Lee, S.S.-J. Social Networking and Personal Genomics Study. Available online: http://bioethics.stanford.edu/research/SocialNetworkingandPersonalGenomics.html (accessed on 20 November 2012).
[28]
SurveyMonkey, Inc. Available online: http://www.surveymonkey.com/ (accessed on 20 September 2011).
O’Neill, S.C.; DeMarco, T.; Peshkin, B.N.; Rogers, S.; Rispoli, J.; Brown, K.; Valdimarsdottir, H.; Schwartz, M.D. Tolerance for uncertainty and perceived risk among women receiving uninformative BRCA1/2 test results. Am. J. Med. Genet. C 2006, 142, 251–259.
[31]
Black, A.B.; Baker, M. The impact of parent advocacy groups, the Internet, and social networking on rare diseases: The IDEA League and IDEA League United Kingdome example. Epilepsia 2011, 52, 102–104, doi:10.1111/j.1528-1167.2011.03013.x.
[32]
Hamilton, A. Invention of the year: 1. The retail DNA test. Time Magazine, 2008. Available online: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1852747_1854493,00html (accessed on 30 October 2008).
[33]
Cushman, R.; Froomkin, A.M.; Cava, A.; Abril, P.; Goodman, K.W. Ethical, legal and social issues for personal health records and applications. J. Biomed. Inform. 2010, 43, S51–S55, doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2010.05.003.
