Should people have access to their own genomic data?

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

Geneticist Charles Danko turned to Twitter recently to ask for help in convincing his institutional review board (IRB) at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, that he should be allowed to let his study participants download their genetic information, tweeting: “Writing IRB amendment to give subjects their genomic data. IRB does not like. Suggested reading to make the case?”

Several scientists responded to Danko’s request, including computational geneticist Yaniv Erlich at Columbia University in New York, who pointed out that direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetics companies such as 23andMe already give people their data.

Researchers, regulators and companies have long debated how much genetic information people should receive. Some say that raw data could be misinterpreted because of the difficulty of accurately predicting disease risk on the basis of genetics. After two years of review, in October the U.S. Food and Drug Administration allowed 23andMe, based in Mountain View, California, to offer a limited number of health-related genetic tests to the public. A June study in the journal Public Health Genomics noted that customers generally understand such genetic results. However, a paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that even clinicians can find it difficult to interpret whole genome scans.

Read full, original post: Should DNA donors see their genomic data?

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-05-01-at-1.29.41-PM
Viewpoint: What happens when whole grains meet modern food manufacturing? Labels don’t tell the whole story.
S
As vaccine rejectionism spreads, measles may be taking a more dangerous turn
Screenshot 2026-05-06 at 2.56
Singularity crisis ahead? Can super babies save us from rogue AI geniuses?
Screenshot-2026-05-06-at-2.07.43-PM
Manufacturing a conspiracy: The timeline of how  the White House embraced the fringe claim that scientists are being mysteriously murdered
Screenshot-2026-04-20-at-2.26.27-PM
Viewpoint — Food-fear world: The latest activist scientists campaign: Cancer-causing additives
Screenshot-2026-04-30-at-2.19.37-PM
5 myths about summer dehydration that could damage your health — or even kill you
Screenshot-2026-03-13-at-12.14.04-PM
The FDA wants to make many popular prescription drugs OTC—a great idea. Here’s why it’s unlikely to happen
ChatGPT-Image-May-6-2026-03_41_05-PM
‘Protecting the integrity of science’: Kennedy’s FDA blocks release of taxpayer-funded studies finding COVID and shingles vaccines safe
Screenshot-2026-04-12-135256
Bixonimania: The fake disease scam that AI swallowed whole
Screenshot-2026-05-01-at-11.56.24-AM
‘Science moves forward when people are willing to think differently’: Memories of DNA maverick Craig Venter
Screenshot-2026-04-03-at-11.15.51-AM
Paraben panic: How a flawed study, media hype, and chemophobia convinced the public of the danger of one of the safest classes of preservatives
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.