Abstract
Direct-to-consumer genetic ancestry testing is a new and growing industry that has gained widespread media coverage and public interest. Its scientific base is in the fields of population and evolutionary genetics and it has benefitted considerably from recent advances in rapid and cost-effective DNA typing technologies. There is a considerable body of scientific literature on the use of genetic data to make inferences about human population history, although publications on inferring the ancestry of specific individuals are rarer. Population geneticists have questioned the scientific validity of some population history inference approaches, particularly those of a more interpretative nature. These controversies have spilled over into commercial genetic ancestry testing, with some companies making sensational claims about their products. One such company—BritainsDNA—made a number of dubious claims both directly to its customers and in the media. Here we outline our scientific concerns, document the exchanges between us, BritainsDNA and the BBC, and discuss the issues raised about media promotion of commercial enterprises, academic freedom of expression, science and pseudoscience and the genetic ancestry testing industry. We provide a detailed account of this case as a resource for historians and sociologists of science, and to shape public understanding, media reporting and scientific scrutiny of the commercial use of population and evolutionary genetics.
Highlights
Scientists have an important role to play as public communicators of science (Peters 2013; 2014).Public relations departments in universities encourage and facilitate media contact based on the belief that a media presence will give the institution visibility and will help to attract students (Peters 2013)
Direct-to-consumer genetic ancestry testing can provide customers with information that falls into two broad categories: (1) genetic genealogy, where relatedness among individuals can be tested on a timescale that supports traditional genealogical research; (2) deep ancestry, where more broad-scale population affinities and origins are inferred
BritainsDNA was one of many brand names used by the Moffat Partnership, a business based in Melrose, Scotland, that offered genetic ancestry tests to the public between November 2011 and
Summary
Scientists have an important role to play as public communicators of science (Peters 2013; 2014). Media-savvy companies try to attract free media coverage for their commercial products under the guise of public-interest science stories, which saves on the cost of advertising and gives an apparently independent endorsement of the product. Rath eventually dropped the case but it cost the newspaper £500,000 in legal fees (Goldacre 2008). Rath was ordered by the high court to pay the initial costs, the newspaper lost £175,000 in unrecovered legal fees (Singh 2011). These high-profile cases were instrumental in calls for reform of the libel law in England and Wales (Nature editorial 2012). The rest of the paper focuses on our interactions with BritainsDNA, the role of the universities and the media in this case and our efforts to counter bad science
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
