Enterprising or altruistic selves? Making up research subjects in genetics research.

The emergence of direct-to-consumer (DTC) personal genomics companies in 2007 was accompanied by considerable media attention and criticism from clinical geneticists and other health professionals, regulators, policy advisors, and ethicists. As well as offering genetic testing services, some firms are also engaged in building their own databases and conducting research with the data obtained from their customers. In this paper, we examine how one of these companies, 23andMe, is creating a certain kind of 'research subject' in opposition to that constituted in conventional forms of disease research. Drawing on debates about neoliberalism, contemporary health discourses and subjectivity, we consider two kinds of subjectivities produced through the discursive and material practices of 23andMe and UK Biobank, namely, 'enterprising' and 'altruistic' selves. We argue that the 23andMe model promotes the idea that curiosity about one's genome on the one hand, and participation in research on the other, are not only compatible but complementary aspects of being an entrepreneurial subject of contemporary health and medicine framed by the technologies of web 2.0.

[1]  A. Petersen.  Risk and the regulated self: the discourse of health promotion as politics of uncertainty , 1996 .

[2]  Michelle L. McGowan,et al.  Personal genomics and individual identities: motivations and moral imperatives of early users , 2010, New genetics and society.

[3]  H. Wolinsky,et al.  Direct-to-consumer genome testing: opportunities for pharmacogenomics research? , 2010, Pharmacogenomics.

[4]  E. Haimes,et al.  Levels and styles of participation in genetic databases : A case study of the North Cumbria Community Genetics Project , 2004 .

[5]  J. Lindsay,et al.  Internet-based trials and the creation of health consumers. , 2010, Social science & medicine.

[6]  M. Hardey.  Doctor in the house: the Internet as a source of lay health knowledge and the challenge to expertise , 1999 .

[7]  H. Wallace.  The development of UK Biobank: Excluding scientific controversy from ethical debate , 2005 .

[8]  Pauline C Ng,et al.  An agenda for personalized medicine. , 2009, Nature.

[9]  L. Cameron,et al.  Attitudes about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: A survey of general practitioners, medical students, and women in the northern region of New Zealand , 2002 .

[10]  Cragg Ross Dawson,et al.  Public perceptions of the collection of human biological samples , 2000 .

[11]  Roger Burrows,et al.  The mundane realities of the everyday lay use of the internet for health, and their consequences for media convergence. , 2005, Sociology of health & illness.

[12]  G. Watts,et al.  UK universities offer degrees in “pseudoscience,” Nature article says , 2007, British medical journal.

[13]  Steven G. Epstein,et al.  Inclusion: The Politics of Difference in Medical Research , 2007 .

[14]  Ethan Basch,et al.  The missing voice of patients in drug-safety reporting. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  David Veenstra,et al.  Health-care referrals from direct-to-consumer genetic testing. , 2010, Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers.

[16]  C. Novas.  The Political Economy of Hope: Patients’ Organizations, Science and Biovalue , 2006 .

[17]  G. Smith,et al.  The potential social impact of predictive genetic testing for susceptibility to common chronic diseases: a review and proposed research agenda. , 1994, Sociology of health & illness.

[18]  Graeme Laurie,et al.  Tackling community concerns about commercialisation and genetic research: a modest interdisciplinary proposal. , 2007, Social science & medicine.

[19]  S. Hyysalo.  Representations of Use and Practice-Bound Imaginaries in Automating the Safety of the Elderly , 2006 .

[20]  Norma Morris,et al.  Volunteer human subjects' understandings of their participation in a biomedical research experiment. , 2006, Social science & medicine.

[21]  P. Borry,et al.  Personal Genome Testing: Do You Know What You Are Buying? , 2009, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[22]  G. Gibson,et al.  Consent and Internet-Enabled Human Genomics , 2010, PLoS genetics.

[23]  Adam Arvidsson,et al.  The Ethical Economy of Customer Coproduction , 2008 .

[24]  Malorye Allison,et al.  Can web 2.0 reboot clinical trials? , 2009, Nature Biotechnology.

[25]  Barbara Prainsack,et al.  Personal genomes: Misdirected precaution , 2008, Nature.

[26]  W. McKellin,et al.  ‘There’s this thing in our family’: predictive testing and the construction of risk for Huntington Disease , 1999 .

[27]  D. Stewart,et al.  Cross-cultural perspectives on research participation and informed consent. , 2006, Social science & medicine.

[28]  Peter R. Harris,et al.  How do patients evaluate and make use of online health information? , 2007, Social science & medicine.

[29]  O. Corrigan,et al.  Empty ethics: the problem with informed consent. , 2003, Sociology of health & illness.

[30]  J. Bovenberg,et al.  Always expect the unexpected. Legal and social aspects of reporting biobank research results to individual research participants , 2009 .

[31]  J. Kivits.  Everyday health and the internet: a mediated health perspective on health information seeking. , 2009, Sociology of health & illness.

[32]  H. Busby.  Biobanks, bioethics and concepts of donated blood in the UK. , 2006, Sociology of health & illness.

[33]  K. Weiner.  Lay Involvement and Legitimacy , 2009 .

[34]  R. Tutton,et al.  What's in a name? Subjects, volunteers, participants and activists in clinical research , 2006 .

[35]  M. Callon,et al.  The Growing Engagement of Emergent Concerned Groups in Political and Economic Life , 2008 .

[36]  A. Giddens,et al.  Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age , 1992, The New Social Theory Reader.

[37]  Catherine Waldby,et al.  National Biobanks: Clinical Labor, Risk Production, and the Creation of Biovalue , 2010, Science, technology & human values.

[38]  Norma Morris,et al.  Role of patient feedback in the design and implementation of clinical trials of optical tomography of the breast , 2003, European Conference on Biomedical Optics.

[39]  C. Shaw,et al.  Psychological impact of predicting individuals' risks of illness: a systematic review. , 1999, Social science & medicine.

[40]  J. Bovenberg,et al.  Biobank research: reporting results to individual participants. , 2009, European journal of health law.

[41]  R. Tutton.  Person, property and gift: exploring languages of tissue donation to biomedical research , 2004 .

[42]  M. Tobin,et al.  Beyond "misunderstanding": written information and decisions about taking part in a genetic epidemiology study. , 2007, Social science & medicine.

[43]  R. Tutton,et al.  Genetic Databases : Socio-Ethical Issues in the Collection and Use of DNA , 2004 .

[44]  R. Tutton.  Gift Relationships in Genetics Research , 2002, Science as culture.

[45]  S. Gibbon.  Breast Cancer Genes and the Gendering of Knowledge: Science and Citizenship in the Cultural Context of the 'New' Genetics , 2006 .

[46]  Alan Petersen,et al.  The new public health : health and self in the age of risk , 1996 .

[47]  A. Petersen.  Securing our genetic health: engendering trust in UK Biobank. , 2005, Sociology of health & illness.

[48]  Brian T. Naughton,et al.  Web-Based, Participant-Driven Studies Yield Novel Genetic Associations for Common Traits , 2010, PLoS genetics.

[49]  D. Winickoff.  Partnership in U.K. Biobank: A Third Way for Genomic Property? , 2007, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.