Gutierrez 1

Kymberly Gutierrez

ENC1102

3 April 2019

Final Draft

Rhetorical Analysis: DNA Kit Companies Fight with Privacy

In “Sociogenetic Risks — Ancestry DNA Testing, Third-Party Identity, and Protection of

Privacy,” Thomas May offers his perspective on the use of DNA kits. The rise of at home DNA

kits has raised a myriad of issues, but the most prominent are companies’ privacy policies. He

brings attention to the moral or rather immoral aspects of DNA kits and their genetic testing

results. This is important for customers to know before choosing whether or not to purchase a kit.

May works for HudsonAlpha, an institute for biotechnology. The institute has published works

of many scientists since its founding year, 2008. May, 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). It is also important to note that May has also dedicated

part of his life to studying philosophy. Therefore, his report is in the perspective of what

philosophy deems immoral and moral. The audience themselves may have different opinions

because most may not have dedicated their life to the study, leading the readers to possibly have

different opinions and reasoning either for or against May.

May begins his report by discussing the issues with privacy, his argument, which was

then followed by him mentioning the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).

Although GINA has good intentions, it also has holes and limitations (May, para. 2). May
 Gutierrez 2

introduced and described GINA to give the audience background on what actions have already

been done to protect privacy. He states, “…GINA places the burden on victims of genetic

discrimination to prove that their information was misused…,” to provide just one instance on

how GINA is not as effective as it could be. The author then continues to the adoptee situation.

Adoptees now have the opportunity to find their biological parents, with or without their

knowledge. By using DNA kit companies to find their family tree, adoptees, according to May,

are disregarding their biological parents will. May points out that although “the laudable ideal

behind this effort is that adoptees have a right to access their basic birth records and heritage

information,” there may be a number of reasons as to why the biological parents do not want to

be reached. In response to adoptees wanting to find their heritage or family tree, May introduces

DNA Quest, a DNA testing company that is designed for finding birth relatives (May, para. 3).

May presents this in order to emphasize his argument on privacy. DNA Quest intentionally

ignores the biological parent’s privacy when there are other possible ways for adoptees to find

information about their birth, which May discusses later on. Continuing May’s argument is the

capture of the Golden State Killer. He describes the situation as “the police simply sent the

Golden State Killer’s genetic data to GEDmatch and had it matched to relatives, then followed

the family tree to the person who was eventually arrested.” By describing this case, May explains

another instance in which the privacy policies should be strengthened. This example hints that,

not only can law enforcement receive DNA results without the suspect knowing, but so can an

everyday person. This means that anyone can violate another person’s privacy, regarding DNA

kit testing. Afterward, he mentions the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

(HIPPA). This is an example of a more stable law, in comparison to GINA. HIPPA provides a

basis for the possible solutions regarding the issue of privacy. The author then delves into the
 Gutierrez 3

possible approaches companies can take. By doing this, it shows that although May has

disagreement with the way the DNA kit companies conduct privacy policies, he is not entirely

against DNA kits themselves.

Reviewing May’s report, he overall wishes to raise awareness of DNA kit companies’

unfair privacy policies. By using the adoptee and Golden State Killer case, albeit different, are

used for the same purpose, to provide evidence of the misuse of DNA kits. The adoptee situation

reinforces May’s philosophical stance because it is a situation that would usually evict an

emotional argument. May also indicates that adoptees use the DNA websites as an alternative,

rather than going to the government for their information. With most of their birth records

sealed, adoptees have limited access to them. By viewing the situation in May’s perspective, and

people who share the same values, 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. His

approach exhibits a side of the issue that would normally be looked over. The same case arises

for the catching of the Golden State Killer. May states, “Although we might all like to allow

DNA testing to be used to catch criminals like the Golden State Killer, such testing unavoidably

comes with a loss of privacy, and competing interests must be considered,” in order to address

the possible perspective of some readers, but then explains his reasoning as to why he believes it

was a misuse. The audience, therefore, has a view of both sides of the argument. 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. May also uses the perspective of one in health
 Gutierrez 4

care. In his argument he mentions HIPPA in order to expand his audience. The act is an example

of a law that cannot be disregarded easily. It is mentioned in order to establish a base for the

possible approaches DNA kit companies can take to improve their privacy policies. May admits

that following the HIPPA privacy protection would have a harmful impact on the direct-to-

consumer testing industry, but that does not mean no action should take place (May, para. 7). At

least some level of protection should be achievable. May almost makes a full circle with his

argument, ending with a solution, that is currently in progress, for the adoptee situation. May

claims that the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics have led some states to

begin opening up birth records (May, para. 8).

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

imperative for the sake of not only those willing to take DNA tests, but to others as well. His

concern is apparent throughout the report, 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. In addition, he also broadens

his audience by providing a healthcare’s perspective. This can be helpful in answering my

research question: How does the way DNA kit companies present themselves affect the number

and type of customers they attract. When beginning research, the main focus was on the way

DNA kits advertise themselves, but it was also important to take into consideration the reviews

of the general public. This occurred because when a customer buys any expensive product it is

almost second nature to weigh the pros and cons of the brand. This source is able to reach into

the mind of some customer’s thought process and is just one of many that offers criticism toward

DNA kit companies.

 Gutierrez 5

There are many important key points in the subject of privacy for the audience. One of

the most important takeaways is that there is always a solution. May himself provides possible

examples of what companies can do in order to aid in improving the privacy policies. For

instance, he suggests, “…mechanisms that allow victims of identity theft…to demand that banks

require verification of identity from credit applicants using their name,” as an idea for improving

privacy policies. Part of that policy can be used by DNA companies in requiring their own

privacy policies. Another key takeaway is that privacy, no matter what actions that person has

committed, is a right for everyone. May supports this with the Golden State Killer case.

Although law enforcement was able to catch the criminal, they did so with unjust means.

Overall, with the multiple claims and arguments made, May provides insight on how strong he

believes privacy policies should be and what can be done to ensure they improve.
 Gutierrez 6

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&sit

e=eds-live&scope=site.