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.noReviewsLabel }}
{{ 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

ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Screenshot 2025-09-17 at 12.41
Misinformation alert: No, glyphosate use in Canadian forests is not spurring more wildfires
Screenshot 2026-07-11 094410
Growing animal muscle and fat cells inside rice grains and calling it beef: One of numerous genetically engineered products shaking up our ecosystem
file-f-d-d-
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Europe's AC debacle underscores fatal flaw in green activism
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-9-2026-02_39_22-PM
Viewpoint: Polyphenols or NAD+ supplements to combat aging: No, Gwenyth Paltrow and followers, don’t waste your money.
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-8-2026-12_32_48-PM
Viewpoint: SCOTUS strikes a blow against junk science in Bayer glyphosate case. Will it deter mass tort litigators?
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-25-2026-12_23_17-PM
No, Bill Gates did not secretly engineer ticks to promote veganism
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-7-2026-01_57_55-PM
Viewpoint: Europe’s rejection of air conditioning is the poster child for misunderstanding how to mitigate the impact of climate change
afb-a-b
As the EU loosens restrictions on agricultural gene editing, it remains years behind the rest of the world on equally-safe GMO foods
Screenshot 2026-07-16 at 8.49
Pete Hegseth’s bizarre Viagra commercial as Trump administration endorses ‘hormone replacement therapy’

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

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