The success of personalised medicine depends upon the public’s embracing genetic tests. Tests that claim to predict an individual’s future health can now be accessed via online companies outside of conventional health regulations. This research assessed the extent to which the public embrace direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests relative to those obtained by a conventional medical practitioner (MP). It also examined the reasons for differences across providers using a randomised experimental telephone survey of 1000 Australians. Results suggest that people were significantly less likely to approve of, and order a DTC genetic test administered by a company compared to a MP because they were less trusting of companies’ being able to protect their privacy and provide them with access to genetic expertise and counselling. Markets for DTC genetic tests provided by companies would therefore significantly increase if trust in privacy protection and access to expertise are enhanced through regulation.
AmeerBKrivoyN (2009) Direct-to-consumer/patient advertising of genetic testing: A position statement of the American College of Clinical Pharmacology. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology49: 886–888.
2.
American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) (2009) Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, 4th edition.Lenexa, KS: AAPOR.
3.
Australian Law Reform Commission and Australian Health Ethics Committee (ALRC/AHEC) (2003) Essentially Yours: The Protection of Human Genetic Information in Australia. Report 96. Sydney: ALRC.
4.
BatesBRLynchJABevanJLConditCM (2005) Warranted concerns, warranted outlooks: A focus group study of public understandings of genetic research. Social Science and Medicine60: 331–344.
5.
BergCFryer-EdwardsK (2008) The ethical challenges of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Journal of Business Ethics77(1): 17–31.
6.
BerwickDM (2003) Disseminating innovations in health care. Journal of the American Medical Association289: 1969–1975.
7.
BorryPCornelMCHowardHC (2010) Where are you going, where have you been: A recent history of the direct-to-consumer genetic testing market. Journal of Community Genetics1(3): 101–106.
8.
BorryPvan HellemondtRESprumontDFittipaldiCJalesDRial-SebbagESprangerTMCurrenLKayeJNysHHowardH (2012) Legislation on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in seven European countries. European Journal of Human Genetics20: 1–7.
9.
BotkinJRRothwellEAndersonRStarkLGoldenbergALewisMBurbankMWongB (2012) Public attitudes regarding the use of residual newborn screening specimens for research. Pediatrics129: 231–239.
10.
BrettGRMetcalfeSAAmorDJHallidayJL (2012) An exploration of genetic health professionals’ experience with direct-to-consumer genetic testing in their clinical practice. European Journal of Human Genetics20(8): 825–830.
BurtonH (2011) Genetics and Mainstream Medicine: Service Development and Integration. Cambridge: PHG Foundation.
13.
Canadian College of Medical Geneticists Ethics and Public Policy Committee et al. (2012) CCMG statement on direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Clinical Genetics81(1): 1–3.
14.
CaulfieldT (2011) Predictive or preposterous? The marketing of DTC genetic testing. Journal of Science Communication10(3): 1–6.
15.
CaulfieldTRiesNMRayPNShumanCWilsonB (2009) Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Good, bad or benign?Clinical Genetics77: 101–105.
16.
CherkasLFHarrisJMLevinsonESpectorTDPrainsackB (2010) A survey of UK public interest in internet-based personal genome testing. PLoS ONE5(10): e13473.
ConditCM (2010) Public attitudes and beliefs about genetics. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics11: 339–359.
19.
CritchleyCNicolD (2011) Understanding the impact of commercialization on public support for science: Is it about the funding source or the organization conducting research?Public Understanding of Science20: 347–366.
20.
CritchleyCNicolDOtlowskiMFAStrangerMJA (2012) Predicting intention to biobank: A national survey. European Journal of Public Health22: 139–144.
21.
DaviesK (2010) The $1,000 Genome: The Revolution in DNA Sequencing and the New Era of Personalized Medicine. New York: Free Press.
22.
EtchegaryHCappelliMPotterBVloetMGrahamIWalkerMWilsonB (2010) Attitude and knowledge about genetics and genetic testing. Public Health Genomics13: 80–88.
European Society of Human Genetics (2010) Statement of the ESHG on direct-to-consumer genetic testing for health related purposes. European Journal of Human Genetics18: 1271–1273.
25.
FosterMWMulvihillJJSharpRR (2009) Evaluating the utility of personal genomic information. Genetics and Medicine11: 570–574.
26.
GaskellGAllumNStaresS (2003) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0. A report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project ‘Life Sciences in European Society’ (QLG7-CT-1999–00286).
GoldsmithLJacksonLO’ConnorASkirtonH (2012) Direct-to-consumer genomic testing: Systematic review of the literature on user perspectives. European Journal of Human Genetics20: 811–816.
31.
GollustSEGordonESZayacCGriffinGChristmanMFPyeritzREWawakLBernhardtBA (2012) Motivations and perceptions of early adopters of personalized genomics: Perspectives from research participants. Public Health Genomics15: 22–30.
32.
HardieEACritchleyC (2008) Public perceptions of Australia’s doctors, hospitals and health care systemsMedical Journal of Australia189: 210–214.
33.
HowardHCBorryP (2009) Personal genome testing: Do you know what you are buying?American Journal of Bioethics9: 11–13.
Human Genetics Commission (2013) Common framework of principles for direct-to-consumer genetic testing services. Available at (accessed 22 January 2013): http://www.bshg.org.uk/Principles.pdf
36.
JanssensCJWGwinnMBradleyLAOostraBAvan DuijnCMKhouryMJ (2008) A critical appraisal of the scientific basis of commercial genomic profiles used to assess health risks and personalize health interventions. American Journal of Human Genetics82(3): 593–599.
37.
JavittGHHudsonK (2007) The right prescription for personalized genetic medicine. Personalized Medicine4(2): 115–118.
38.
JonassaintCRSantosERGloverCMPaynePWFasayeGAOji-NjidekaNHookerSHernandezWFosterMKittlesRARoyalCD (2010) Regional differences in awareness and attitudes regarding genetic testing for disease and ancestry. Human Genetics128: 249–260.
39.
KaufmanDJMurphy-BollingerJScottJHudsonKL (2009) Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. American Journal of Human Genetics85: 643–654.
40.
LynchJParrottAHopkinRMyersM (2011) Media coverage of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Journal of Genetics and Counselling20: 486–494.
41.
MagnusDChoMKCook-DeeganR (2009) Direct-to-consumer genetic tests: Beyond medical regulation?Genome Medicine1(2): 17.
42.
MakeevaOAMarkovaVVPuzyrevVP (2009) Public interest and expectations concerning commercial genotyping and genetic risk assessment. Personalized Medicine6(3): 329–341.
43.
McGowanMLFishmanJRLambrixMA (2010) Personal genomics and individual identities: Motivations and moral imperatives of early users. New Genetics and Society29: 261–290.
44.
McGuireA (2008) 1000 genomes: On the road to personalized medicine. Personalized Medicine5: 195–197.
45.
McGuireADiazCMWangTHilsenbeckS (2009) Social networkers’ attitudes toward direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. American Journal of Bioethics9(6–7): 3–10.
NgPCMurraySSLevySVenterJC (2009) An agenda for personalized medicine. Nature461: 724–726.
49.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2010) Medical profiling and online medicine: The ethics of personalised healthcare in a consumer age. October. Available at (accessed 22 January 2013): http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/personalised-healthcare-0
50.
OtlowskiMTaylorSBombardY (2012) Genetic discrimination: International perspectives. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics13: 433–454.
51.
PiehlM (2011) Regulating hype and hope: A business ethics model approach to potential oversight of direct-to-consumer genetic tests. MSU Journal of Medicine and Law59: 59–93.
52.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods40: 879–891.
53.
RiesN et al. (2010a) Analysis of Privacy Policies and Practices of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Companies: Private Sector Databanks and Privacy Protection Norms. Edmonton: Health Law Institute, University of Alberta.
54.
RiesNHyde-LayRCaulfieldT (2010b) Willingness to pay for genetic testing: A study of attitudes in a Canadian population. Public Health Genomics13: 292–300.
55.
SkirtonHGoldsmithLJacksonLO’ConnorA (2012) Direct to consumer genetic testing: A systematic review of position statements, policies and recommendations. Clinical Genetics82: 210–218.
56.
SuYHowardHCBorryP (2011) Users’ motivations to purchase direct-to-consumer genome-wide testing: An exploratory study of personal stories. Journal of Community Genetics2: 135–146.
57.
SweenyKLeggAM (2011) Predictors of interest in direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Psychology & Health26: 1259–1272.
58.
US Government Accountability Office (2006) Nutrigenetic testing: Tests purchased from four web sites mislead consumers. 27July. Available at (accessed 22 January 2013): www.gao.gov/new.items/d06977t.pdf
59.
US Government Accountability Office (2010) Direct-to-consumer genetic tests: Misleading test results are further complicated by deceptive marketing and other questionable practices. 22July. Available at (accessed 22 January 2013): http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-847T
60.
WadmanM (2008) James Watson’s genome sequenced at high speed. Nature452: 788.
61.
WangJLinMCrenshawAHutchinsonAHicksBYeagerMBerndtSHuangWHayesRBChanockSJJonesRCRamakrishnanR (2009) High-throughput single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping using nanofluidic Dynamic Arrays. BMC Genomics10: 561.
62.
WildeAMeiserBMitchellPBSchofieldPR (2010) Public interest in predictive genetic testing, including direct-to-consumer testing, for susceptibility to major depression: Preliminary findings. European Journal of Human Genetics18: 47–51.
