I have begun research on the way DNA kits advertise themselves to the public, but it has

come to my attention that it is also important to take into consideration reviews of the general

public and their thoughts on DNA kit testing. This may or may not have an impact on how many

consumers each product receives. By choosing this article I am able to connect the thought

process some consumers go through before deciding whether or not to purchase a kit.

The rise of at home DNA kits has raised a myriad of issues, one of which is companies’

stance on privacy. In a report, “Sociogenetic Risks — Ancestry DNA Testing, Third-Party Identity,

and Protection of Privacy,” Thomas May offers his perspective on DNA kits. He brings attention

to the moral or rather immoral aspects of DNA kits and their genetic testing results. May works

for HudsonAlpha, an institute for biotechnology. He, a research investigator, has long studied

the positive effects genetic testing has on adoptees, but more so of the autonomy in healthcare

while working under this institution (Parker, 2018). May has conducted much research on

genetic testing and has even gone on the radio, gave statements to magazines, and written a

few papers on genetic testing (Parker, 2018). His experience in the field, therefore, makes him

credible.

The argument May poses is that privacy, regarding third-party identification, is

imperative for the sake of not only us, but others as well. According to May’s study, an adoptee

has the opportunity to find their family tree by simply taking a DNA test, therefore finding their

birth parents, and law enforcement has the opportunity to catch criminals. May’s analytical

voice shows that his opinions are backed up by only facts. His concern is apparent throughout

the paper, showing that he is, in fact, passionate about the topic. He wants to reach out to any
person willing to take a DNA test, wanting them to have knowledge of the company’s privacy

policies before continuing with the test.

May begins the paper with an introduction, stating his argument, and then addresses the

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and how although had good intentions, has holes

(May, para. 2). This provides the base for his argument because he then follows up with the

adoptee and Golden State Killer situations (May, para. 3-4). By using the two different cases,

May is reaching out to multiple perspectives, society’s and health care. The adoptee situation

is, after all, a matter that should go into judgement in society (May, para. 4). The Golden State

Killer case is subject to harsh criticism by those in health care since law enforcement, in a health

care provider’s view, did not take into consideration the consequences of using protected

health information. Afterwards, he goes into detail as to why they are an issue with privacy and

then gives his thoughts onto what could possibly be done (May, para. 8). Offering solutions

shows that May is not fully against DNA kits.

Reviewing May’s report, the two key points of his argument on privacy stems from

adoptees and the Golden State Killer case. Adoptees now have a way of finessing the system by

using DNA testing websites. With most of their birth records sealed, adoptees have limited

access to them. By viewing the situation in May’s perspective, and people alike, the moral

stance of this is unjust. The biological parents of the adoptee had the choice to withdraw

information, giving them the right to privacy. By looking into the Golden State Killer case, the

audience can gather that not only did law enforcement use DNA testing without the knowledge

of the Joseph James DeAngelo, the Golden State Killer (May, para. 4), but it also demonstrates

that a person’s DNA can be used by anyone without their knowledge. Therefore, those misusing
other’s DNA can receive private information of the aforementioned person, an idea implied by

May.

There are many takeaways from May’s article, but the most important one he

gets across is the importance of privacy. Privacy policies, according to May, should not be taken

lightly and DNA kit producers should take those policies into consideration before releasing

information. He oven goes as far as to add solutions to said issues, “…regulatory oversight is

needed to ensure the privacy of genetic information…”. This exhibits May not fully being

against DNA kits, he only wants the companies to implement precautions and take privacy

policies more seriously.

Works Cited
Parker, Drew. “Thomas May, PhD.” HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, 21 Feb. 2018,
hudsonalpha.org/faculty/thomas-may/.

May, Thomas. “Sociogenetic Risks - Ancestry DNA Testing, Third-Party Identity, and Protection
of Privacy.” The New England Journal of Medicine, no. 5, 2018, p. 410. EBSCOhost,
login.ezproxy.net.ucf.edu/login?auth=shibb&url=https://search-ebscohost-
com.ezproxy.net.ucf.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsggr&AN=edsgcl.549983382&site=e
ds-live&scope=site.