Truth,Proof,Sleuth: Trust in Direct-to-Consumer DNA Testing and Other Sources of Identity Information among Australian Donor-Conceived People

Abstract

The digital age is characterised by unprecedented access to technologies to understand our bodies, genetics and family histories. The last decade has seen a growing uptake of direct-to-consumer DNA testing, which is (re)shaping individuals’ identity narratives. Drawing on data from a national online survey with Australian donor-conceived people (N = 91) and semi-structured interviews (N = 28), we conceptualise DNA results as a genetic narrative that coexists with other sources of identity information such as familial narratives, medical records and experiential knowledge from peers. Our analysis derived three themes: truth – how DNA results disrupted ontological security and prompted confrontation; proof – how DNA testing was valued and legitimised, especially compared with medical records; and sleuth – how DNA testing was leveraged in agentive practices. In doing so, we explore how processes of (dis)trust shape the forms of identity information individuals seek out, believe and rely upon to position themselves within relational and socio-technical webs.

Keywords

Australia DNA donor conception family genetics identity qualitative

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

23andMe (2009) Introducing Relative Finder: The newest feature from 23andMe. Available at: https://blog.23andme.com/news/introducing-relative-finder-the-newest-feature-from-23andme/ (accessed 27 April 2021).

Adams

Lorbach

(2012) Accessing donor conception information in Australia: A call for retrospective access. Journal of Law and Medicine 19(4): 707–721.

Allan

(2017) Donor Conception and the Search for Information: From Secrecy and Anonymity to Openness. Abingdon: Routledge.

Andreassen

(2018) Mediated Kinship: Gender, Race and Sexuality in Donor Families. London: Routledge.

Barnwell

(2013) The genealogy craze: Authoring an authentic identity through family history research. Life Writing 10(3): 261–275.

Bettinger

(2020) The Shared cM Project – version 4.0. The Genetic Genealogist. Available at: https://thegeneticgenealogist.com/2020/03/27/version-4-0-march-2020-update-to-the-shared-cm-project/ (accessed 15 April 2021).

Blyth

(2012) Genes r us? Making sense of genetic and non-genetic relationships following anonymous donor insemination. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 24(7): 719–726.

Bottero

(2015) Practising family history: ‘Identity’ as a category of social practice. The British Journal of Sociology 66(3): 534–556.

Braun

Clarke

(2020) One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology 18(3): 1–25.

10.

Braun

Clarke

Boulton

, et al. (2021) The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 24(6): 641–654.

11.

Charmaz

(2006) Constructing Grounded Theory. London: SAGE Publications.

12.

Crawshaw

(2018) Direct-to-consumer DNA testing: The fallout for individuals and their families unexpectedly learning of their donor conception origins. Human Fertility 21(4): 225–228.

13.

Crawshaw

(2020) Emerging challenges relating to gamete(s) donation: Recent developments in the UK and their international implications. In: Beier

Brügge

Thorn

, et al. (eds) Assistierte Reproduktion mit Hilfe Dritter. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 401–414.

14.

Crawshaw

Daniels

Adams

, et al. (2016) Emerging models for facilitating contact between people genetically related through donor conception: A preliminary analysis and discussion. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online 1(2): 71–80.

15.

Darroch

Smith

(2021) Establishing identity: How direct-to-consumer genetic testing challenges the assumption of donor anonymity. Family Court Review 59(1): 103–120.

16.

Decorte

(2010) Small scale domestic cannabis cultivation: An anonymous web survey among 659 cannabis cultivators in Belgium. Contemporary Drug Problems 37(2): 341–370.

17.

Dingle

(2021) Brave New Humans: The Dirty Reality of Donor Conception. Melbourne: Hardie Grant Books.

18.

Fotaki

(2014) Can consumer choice replace trust in the National Health Service in England? Towards developing an affective psychosocial conception of trust in health care. Sociology of Health & Illness 36(8): 1276–1294.

19.

Frith

Blyth

Crawshaw

, et al. (2018) Searching for ‘relations’ using a DNA linking register by adults conceived following sperm donation. BioSocieties 13(1): 170–189.

20.

Gibbon

Novas

(eds) (2008) Biosocialities, Genetics and the Social Sciences: Making Biologies and Identities. London: Routledge.

21.

Giddens

(1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

22.

Haraway

(1988) Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14(3): 575–599.

23.

Harper

Kennett

Reisel

(2016) The end of donor anonymity: How genetic testing is likely to drive anonymous gamete donation out of business. Human Reproduction 31(6): 1135–1140.

24.

Harrigan

(2010) Exploring the narrative process: An analysis of the adoption stories mothers tell their internationally adopted children. Journal of Family Communication 10(1): 24–39.

25.

Harrigan

Dieter

Leinwohl

, et al. (2015) ‘It’s just who I am. . . I have brown hair. I have a mysterious father’: An exploration of donor-conceived offspring’s identity construction. Journal of Family Communication 15(1): 75–93.

26.

Hewitt

(2002) Missing links: Identity issues of donor conceived people. Journal of Fertility Counselling 9: 14–19.

27.

Inwood

Zappavigna

(2021) Ambient affiliation, misinformation and moral panic: Negotiating social bonds in a YouTube internet hoax. Discourse & Communication 15(3): 281–307.

28.

Kellas

(2010) Narrating family: Introduction to the special issue on narratives and storytelling in the family. Journal of Family Communication 10(1): 1–6.

29.

Kennett

Reisel

Harper

(2019) Genetic databases and donor anonymity. Human Reproduction 34(9): 1848–1849.

30.

Khodyakov

(2007) Trust as a process: A three-dimensional approach. Sociology 41(1): 115–132.

31.

Klotz

(2016) Wayward relations: Novel searches of the donor-conceived for genetic kinship. Medical Anthropology 35(1): 45–57.

32.

Kirkman

(2003) Parents’ contributions to the narrative identity of offspring of donor-assisted conception. Social Science & Medicine 57(11): 2229–2242.

33.

Kramer

(2011) Kinship, affinity and connectedness: Exploring the role of genealogy in personal lives. Sociology 45(3): 379–395.

34.

Larmuseau

MHD

(2019) Growth of ancestry DNA testing risks huge increase in paternity issues. Nature Human Behaviour 3(1): 5–5.

35.

Lassalzede

Paci

Rouzier

, et al. (2017) Sperm donor conception and disclosure to children: A 10-year retrospective follow-up study of parental attitudes in one French center for the study and preservation of eggs and sperm (CECOS). Fertility and Sterility 108(2): 247–253.

36.

Lawler

(2015) Identity: Sociological Perspectives. London: John Wiley & Sons.

37.

Lee

Voigt

(2020) DNA testing for family reunification and the limits of biological truth. Science, Technology, & Human Values 45(3): 430–454.

38.

Lindee

(2008) Moments of Truth in Genetic Medicine. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

39.

Luhmann

(1988) Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In: Gambetta

(ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 94–107.

40.

Lupton

(2016) The Quantified Self. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

41.

Macmillan

Allan

Johnstone

, et al. (2021) The motivations of donor-conceived adults for seeking information about, and contact with, sperm donors. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 43(1): 149–158.

42.

Macpherson

(2019) Ethical reflections about the anonymity in gamete donation. Human Reproduction 34(9): 1847–1848.

43.

Mason

(2006) Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research 6(1): 9–25.

44.

Möllering

(2013) Process views of trusting and crises. In: Bachmann

Zaheer

(eds) Handbook of Advances in Trust Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 285–306.

45.

Motluk

(2005) Anonymous sperm donor traced on internet. New Scientist. Available at: www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825244-200-anonymous-sperm-donor-traced-on-internet/ (accessed 27 April 2021).

46.

Newman

Persson

Ellard

(2017) Pills, providers and partners: Exploring trust among serodiscordant couples in Australia. In: Persson

Hughes

(eds) Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Couples with Mixed HIV Status: Beyond Positive/Negative. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing, pp.265–276.

47.

Newton

(in press) Doing reflexivity in research on donor conception: Examining moments of bonding and becoming. In: Shaw

(ed.) Reproductive Citizenship: Technologies, Rights and Relationships. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.

48.

Newton

Southerton

(2021) Situated talk: A method for a reflexive encounter with #donorconceived on TikTok. Media International Australia. Epub ahead of print 6 December 2021. DOI: 10.1177/1329878X211064646.

49.

Newton

Zappavigna

Drysdale

, et al. (2022) Memes as bonding icons for belonging in donor-conceived people. Social Media and Society 8(1): 20563051211069055.

50.

Nordqvist

(2021) Telling reproductive stories: Social scripts, relationality and donor conception. Sociology 55(4): 677–695.

51.

Novas

Rose

(2000) Genetic risk and the birth of the somatic individual. Economy and Society 29(4): 485–513.

52.

Postan

(2016) Defining ourselves: Personal bioinformation as a tool of narrative self-conception. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 13(1): 133–151.

53.

Rabinow

(1996) Artificiality and enlightenment: From sociobiology to biosociality. In: Rabinow

(ed.) Essays on the Anthropology of Reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp.91–111.

54.

Rose

(2009) Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

55.

Rowland

(1985) The social and psychological consequences of secrecy in artificial insemination by donor (AID) programmes. Social Science & Medicine 21(4): 391–396.

56.

Swanson

(2012) Adultery by doctor: Artificial insemination, 1890–1945. Chicago-Kent Law Review 87(2): 591–633.

57.

Tallandini

Zanchettin

Gronchi

, et al. (2016) Parental disclosure of assisted reproductive technology (ART) conception to their children: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Human Reproduction 31(6): 1275–1287.

58.

Taylor

(2011) The intimate insider: Negotiating the ethics of friendship when doing insider research. Qualitative Research 11(1): 3–22.

59.

We Are Donor Conceived (2020) 2020 We Are Donor Conceived survey report. Available at: www.wearedonorconceived.com/2020-survey-top/2020-we-are-donor-conceived-survey/ (accessed 19 May 2021).