[iamben]

I absolutely love the idea of this.

I just think that I'll end up in a database that, despite any promise to the contrary now, will probably end up being used against me at some point in the future (targeted marking / denying of health insurance / whatever else). Which I really don't love.

And I hate to be cynical, but it strikes me that becoming the Google of genomes is ultimately going to make far, far more cash than selling a kit that tests for genetic problems.

Don't be evil, and all that.

[TheAnimus]

> Don't be evil, and all that.

Does anyone still believe that? I remember when they still had separation between GMail and Searches / Analytics.

[iamben]

My point exactly.

[Luc]

No one stops you from entering a fake name. At least they didn't when I ordered some kits a couple of years ago.

[iamben]

I suppose I'd be more interested if you could buy the kit from a supermarket, and each kit had a unique code and password you could enter online to check for your results. So once the sample is posted, the only thing that connects it to me (without a probably unfeasible amount of detective work) would be my IP address. (And my DNA, obviously...)

[bjackman]

Hmm... that would come off as pretty suspicious; it would make it very easy to get away with DNA testing other people against their will.

[georgyo]

The 23andme kit requires a substantial amount of spit, so it would be hard to trick someone into giving you their DNA.

In terms of doing DNA testing behind someone's back, paternity testing is DNA testing, and only requires a sample of the DNA. You can buy those kits at walmart already. Search for Identigene DNA Paternity Test Kit.

[tobylane]

This kit lets you collect material by yourself. Some other kits/companies require a doctor/nurse signature that they did take material from someone who matched a photo id.

[cornewut]

Entering a fake name doesn't really help. If one of your relatives also orders the kit, your name can easily be found out.

[berberous]

In the U.S. at least, GINA (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act) prevents insurance companies from denying health insurance on such a basis. However, I don't think it restricts, for example, life insurance from potentially refusing you. And of course GINA could always be repealed.

[spacefight]

>> Which I really don't love.

Me neither. Easy solution (at least for now): don't use it.

[ctz]

> denying of health insurance

All the health insurance I've ever had has had cover for pre-existing conditions, required no medical details or medical examination. As far as I can tell, insurance companies have surprisingly little interest in my health, past my age and sex.

I can't see that changing so far that they pay third parties for a genetic screen in the near future.

[ceejayoz]

> As far as I can tell, insurance companies have surprisingly little interest in my health, past my age and sex.

Until you file a big claim.

[iamben]

Just from (UK) insurer Aviva's health insurance policy:

"We don’t cover treatment of pre-existing conditions or related conditions if you had symptoms of, medication for, treatment for or advice about that condition in the five years before your joining date."

It wouldn't take much for companies to start requiring that you disclose the knowledge you're at (high?) risk of something and adjusting their prices accordingly - particularly in long term policies.

Edit: I probably should have said life insurance. Health insurance isn't (entirely) necessary in the UK thanks to the NHS. But imagine the premiums on a life insurance policy if they knew you had a high certainty of something difficult or incurable?

[jebus989]

> It wouldn't take much for companies to start requiring that you disclose the knowledge you're at (high?) risk of something and adjusting their prices accordingly - particularly in long term policies.

That's what insurance is though, right? You pay a premium over time relative to their payout risk. If you have heightened risk of serious disease you're not entitled to the same premium as someone with considerably lower risk.

Regardless, other than a couple of exceptions the genetics of complex diseases wouldn't be of much interest to health insurers. A SNP with a tiny effect size associated with type 2 diabetes gives less risk information than taking a look at a person's waistline.

[talkingquickly]

Often (in the UK at least) if your insurance is provided as a benefit through a company rather than buying your policy directly, pre existing conditions will be covered even though the provider would normally exclude them if purchased by an individual.

[Ntrails]

Typically this is because they are able to make decent generalisations about the total risk pool they are insuring.

Offering 100 policies at £100 makes sense if you can make a decent estimate of the average annual payout being £90. The fact that one guy walks in to the policy knowing he'll cost £500 doesn't concern you.

Offering 1 policy at £100 without any exclusions means that you get adverse selection - a unusually high proportion of your clients would walk in knowing that they'll cost the £500.

In many countries where health insurance is obligatory, regulators have risk pooling between insurers to help negate selection effects (I think this was included in ObamaCare provision but not sure)

[ctz]

This observation likely explains my experience!

[aroch]

23andME technically offer no medical advice, but I wouldn't be surprised if insurers don't care about that technicality