Article | Published:

Constructing identities: the implications of DTC ancestry testing for tribal communities

Genetics in Medicine (2019) | Download Citation




Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic ancestry companies have rapidly increased in popularity, with top testing services maintaining genetic databases of several million consumers. While genetic ancestry tests are often characterized as recreational, companies invoke deeply personal concepts of individual identity, group membership, and kinship when marketing their services. In particular, many companies claim to be able to determine Native American heritage, claims that are not supported by the state of the science and may have significant cultural and political consequences for US tribal communities. This study aims to fill the gaps in empirical work on this issue and characterize how genetic ancestry companies articulate indigenous identity through their marketing strategies.


We conducted a qualitative content analysis of the public facing websites for 25 DTC genetic ancestry companies that offer services measuring Native American ancestry.


Our findings describe how genetic ancestry companies promote a causal relationship between genetics and self-identity through marketing language such as “Discover Yourself” and “Are you Native American?” and how this may affect US tribal communities.


Genetic ancestry company claims regarding genetic ancestry, personal identity, and cultural membership are problematic and challenge how US tribal nations currently identify and create potential obstacles for tribal sovereignty.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


  1. 1.

    O’Brien SA. 23andMe wants to develop drugs based on your DNA. CNNMoney. 12 September 2017. Accessed 8 February 2018.

  2. 2.

    Anders M. DNA ancestry test kits are hot holiday gifts despite privacy concerns from some. Forbes. Accessed 5 February 2018.

  3. 3.

    Gill L. Genetic tests to find ancestry could allow companies to exploit you, Schumer warns. Newsweek. 27 November 2017. Accessed 8 February 2018.

  4. 4.

    Bolnick DA, Fullwiley D, Duster T, et al. The science and business of genetic ancestry testing. Science. 2007;318:399–400.

  5. 5.

    Royal CD, Novembre J, Fullerton SM, et al. Inferring genetic ancestry: opportunities, challenges, and implications. Am J Hum Genet. 2010;86:661–673.

  6. 6.

    Jobling MA, Rasteiro R, Wetton JH. In the blood: the myth and reality of genetic markers of identity. Ethn Racial Stud. 2016;39:142–161.

  7. 7.

    Lee SS-J, Bolnick DA, Duster T, Ossorio P, TallBear K. The illusive gold standard in genetic ancestry testing. Science. 2009;325:38–39.

  8. 8.

    Gutmann A, Wagner JW, Ali Y, Allen AL, Arras JD. Privacy and progress in whole genome sequencing. Washington, DC: Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues; 2012.

  9. 9.

    Kolata G, Murphy H. The Golden State Killer is tracked through a thicket of DNA, and experts shudder. The New York Times. 27 April 2018. Accessed 30 April 2018.

  10. 10.

    Phillips AM. Only a click away—DTC genetics for ancestry, health, love…and more: a view of the business and regulatory landscape. Appl Transl Genom. 2016;8 (suppl C):16–22.

  11. 11.

    Sarata A. Genetic ancestry testing: CRS report for Congress. Accessed 4 January 2018.

  12. 12.

    Lee SS-J. Race, risk, and recreation in personal genomics: the limits of play. Med Anthropol Q. 2013;27:550–569.

  13. 13.

    Sankar P, Cho MK, Mountain J. Race and ethnicity in genetic research. Am J Med Genet A. 2007;143:961–970.

  14. 14.

    Shriver MD, Kittles RA. Genetic ancestry and the search for personalized genetic histories. Nat Rev Genet. 2004;5:611.

  15. 15.

    Elliott C, Brodwin P. Identity and genetic ancestry tracing. BMJ. 2002;325:1469–1471.

  16. 16.

    Nelson A. The social life of DNA: race, reparations, and reconciliation after the genome. Boston: Beacon Press; 2016.

  17. 17.

    Hochschild JL, Sen M. To test or not? Singular or multiple heritage?: genomic ancestry testing and Americans’ racial identity. Du Bois Rev. 2015;12:321–347.

  18. 18.

    Heine SJ. DNA is not destiny: the remarkable, completely misunderstood relationship between you and your genes. 1st ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company; 2017.

  19. 19.

    Roth WD, Ivemark B. Genetic options: the impact of genetic ancestry testing on consumers’ racial and ethnic identities. Am J Sociol. 2018;124:150–184.

  20. 20.

    Pullman D, Arbour L. Genetic research and culture: where does the offense lie?. In: Youngessor JO, Brunkessor CG, (eds.) The ethics of cultural appropriation. p. 115–139. Wiley-Blackwell; 2009.

  21. 21.

    TallBear K. The Weyanoke Association: DNA & Indian ancestry. Accessed 15 November 2017.

  22. 22.

    Garrison NA. Genomic justice for Native Americans: impact of the Havasupai case on genetic research. Sci Technol Human Values. 2013;38:201–223.

  23. 23.

    Raff J. What do Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test results actually mean? Forbes. Accessed 22 October 2018.

  24. 24.

    Wagner JK, Cooper JD, Sterling R, Royal CD. Tilting at windmills no longer: a data-driven discussion of DTC DNA ancestry tests. Genet Med. 2012;14:586.

  25. 25.

    Weaver HN. What color is red? Exploring the implications of phenotype for Native Americans. In: Hall RE (ed.) The melanin millennium. p. 287–299. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 2013.

  26. 26.

    Bardill J. Tribal enrollment and genetic testing. Accessed 16 November 2017.

  27. 27.

    Reich D. How to talk about ‘race’ and genetics. The New York Times. 30 March 2018. Accessed 1 May 2018.

  28. 28.

    Kahn J. How not to talk about race and genetics. BuzzFeed. 20 March 2018. Accessed 1 May 2018.

  29. 29.

    TallBear K. Genomic articulations of indigeneity. Soc Stud Sci. 2013;43:509–533.

  30. 30.

    Bahrampour T. They considered themselves white, but DNA tests told a more complex story. Washington Post. 6 February 2018. Accessed 8 March 2018.

  31. 31.

    TallBear K, Bolnick DA. “Native American DNA” tests: what are the risks to tribes? Study cites further undermining of tribal sovereignty. The Native Voice. 2004.

  32. 32.

    Rasmussen M, Sikora M, Albrechtsen A, et al. The ancestry and affiliations of Kennewick Man. Nature. 2015;523:455–458.

  33. 33.

    Koerner BI. Blood feud. Wired. Accessed 1 February 2018.

  34. 34.

    Obama B. Presidential memorandum on tribal consultation. 5 November 2009.

  35. 35.

    TallBear K. Native American DNA: tribal belonging and the false promise of genetic science. University of Minnesota Press; 2013.

  36. 36.

    Reardon J, TallBear K. “Your DNA is our history”: genomics, anthropology, and the construction of whiteness as property. Curr Anthropol. 2012;53 (suppl 5):S233–S245.

  37. 37.

    Golbeck N, Roth W. Aboriginal claims: DNA ancestry testing and changing concepts of indigeneity. In: Berthier-Foglar S, Collingwood-Whittick S, Tolazzi S, (eds.) Biomapping indigenous peoples: towards an understanding of the issues. p. 415–432. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi; 2012.

  38. 38.

    TallBear K. in search of Native American race and tribe. In: Koenig BA, Lee SS-J, Richardson SS, (eds.) Revisiting race in a genomic age. p. 235–252. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 2008.

  39. 39.

    Schmidt RW. American Indian identity and blood quantum in the 21st century: a critical review. J Anthropol. 2011;2011:1–9.

  40. 40.

    Roth W, Lyon K. Genetic ancestry tests and race: who takes them, why, and how do they affect racial identities? In: Suzuki K, Vacano DV, (eds.) p. 133–170. Reconsidering Race: Social Science Perspectives on Racial Categories in the Age of Genomics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2018.

Download references


The authors thank Vence Bonham, Edmund Keane, and Benjamin E. Berkman for valuable discussion and feedback on earlier drafts of this article. The views expressed are the authors’ own. They do not represent the position or policy of the National Institutes of Health or the Department of Health and Human Services.

Author information


  1. Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

    • Hina Walajahi BS
    •  & Sara Chandros Hull PhD
  2. Tribal Health Research Office, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

    • David R. Wilson PhD
  3. Bioethics Core, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

    • Sara Chandros Hull PhD


  1. Search for Hina Walajahi BS in:

  2. Search for David R. Wilson PhD in:

  3. Search for Sara Chandros Hull PhD in:


The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Chandros Hull PhD.

Supplementary information

About this article

Publication history