One controversial area of direct-to-consumer genetic testing in China is “genetic talent testing” for children. In this study, I show that while experts criticize genetic talent testing as unscientific, the persistence of genetic talent testing is not merely a product of parents’ scientific illiteracy. Instead, genetic talent testing reflects parents’ pragmatic use of technology in response to the parenting pressures in contemporary China. Parents see the results of genetic talent testing as offering an advantage for their children when combined with the intensive parenting strategy of precision education. Drawing on the sociology of testing, I argue how genetic talent testing in China is a product of broader concerns about population quality and can potentially reshape how parents imagine quality children through the theory of multiple intelligences. My study of this “off label” use of direct-to-consumer genetic testing also suggests that scientists need to broaden their imagination of potential misuses of their technologies.
AckermanSLDarlingKWLeeSS-JHiattRAShimJK (2016) Accounting for complexity: Gene–environment interaction research and the moral economy of quantification. Science, Technology, & Human Values41(2): 194–218.
2.
CalarcoJM (2018) Negotiating Opportunities: How the Middle Class Secures Advantages in School. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
CallierSLBonhamVL (2015) Taking a stand: The genetics community’s responsibility for intelligence research. Hastings Center Report45(S1): S54–S58.
4.
CameronLErkalNGangadharanLMengX (2013) Little emperors: Behavioral impacts of China’s one-child policy. Science339(6122): 953–957.
5.
CarsonJ (2007) The Measure of Merit: Talents, Intelligence, and Inequality in the French and American Republics, 1750-1940. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
CaulfieldTMcGuireAL (2012) Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Perceptions, problems, and policy responses. Annual Review of Medicine63(1): 23–33.
ChenYKestenO (2017) Chinese college admissions and school choice reforms: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economy125(1): 99–139.
9.
DeterdingNMWatersMC (2021) Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological Methods & Research50: 708–739.
10.
DikötterF (1998) Imperfect Conceptions: Medical Knowledge, Birth Defects, and Eugenics in China. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
11.
DuLWangM (2020) Genetic privacy and data protection: A review of Chinese direct-to-consumer genetic test services. Frontiers in Genetics11: 416.
12.
DusterT (2003) Backdoor to Eugenics. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
13.
FongVL (2004) Only Hope: Coming of Age Under China’s One-Child Policy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
FourcadeM (2016) Ordinalization: Lewis A. Coser memorial award for theoretical agenda setting 2014. Sociological Theory34(3): 175–195.
15.
FourcadeM (2021) Ordinal citizenship. The British Journal of Sociology72(2): 154–173.
16.
FourcadeMHealyK (2013) Classification situations: Life-chances in the neoliberal era. Accounting, Organizations and Society38(8): 559–572.
17.
GardnerH (1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.
18.
GardnerH (2011) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.
19.
GreelyH (2008) Genetic genealogy: Genetics meet the marketplace. In: KoenigBALeeSS-JRichardsonSS (eds) Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp. 215–234.
20.
GreenhalghS (2008) Just One Child: Science and Policy in Deng’s China. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
21.
GreenhalghS (2010) Cultivating Global Citizens: Population in the Rise of China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
GreenhalghSWincklerEA (2005) Governing China’s Population: From Leninist to Neoliberal Biopolitics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
23.
HeWJamesSAGiovanna MerliMZhengH (2014) An increasing socioeconomic gap in childhood overweight and obesity in China. American Journal of Public Health104(1): e14–e22.
24.
KaravaniEZukOZeeviDBarzilaiNStefanisNCHatzimanolisA, et al. (2019) Screening human embryos for polygenic traits has limited utility. Cell179(6): 1424–1435.e8.
25.
KipnisAB (2011) Governing Educational Desire: Culture, Politics, and Schooling in China. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
26.
KuanT (2015) Love’s Uncertainty: The Politics and Ethics of Child Rearing in Contemporary China. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
27.
LareauA (2011) Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life, 2nd Edition with an Update a Decade Later, 2nd edn.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
28.
LathamSR (2017) Conclusion: How might school systems use genetic data? In: BouregySGrigorenkoELLathamSR, et al. (eds) Genetics, Ethics and Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 383–394.
29.
LiJ (2021) Cloaking the pregnancy: Scientific uncertainty and gendered burden among middle-class mothers in urban China. Science, Technology, & Human Values46(1): 3–28.
30.
LiangJLiuXZhangW (2019) Scientists vs laypeople: How genetically modified food is discussed on a Chinese Q&A website. Public Understanding of Science28(8): 991–1004.
31.
LinX (2019) “Purchasing hope”: The consumption of children’s education in urban China. The Journal of Chinese Sociology6(1): 8.
32.
LiuXJiangLWangHJiangC (2020) Importance of effective regulation for the Chinese genetic testing industry. Trends in Biotechnology38(6): 577–579.
33.
LiuY (2016) Higher Education, Meritocracy and Inequality in China. Singapore: Springer.
34.
MaY (2020) Ambitious and Anxious: How Chinese College Students Succeed and Struggle in American Higher Education. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
35.
MarresNStarkD (2020) Put to the test: For a new sociology of testing. The British Journal of Sociology71(3): 423–443.
36.
MartinPBrownNTurnerA (2008) Capitalizing hope: The commercial development of umbilical cord blood stem cell banking. New Genetics and Society27(2): 127–143.
37.
NavonDEyalG (2016) Looping genomes: Diagnostic change and the genetic makeup of the autism population. American Journal of Sociology121(5): 1416–1471.
38.
NelsonA (2008) Bio science: Genetic genealogy testing and the pursuit of African ancestry. Social Studies of Science38(5): 759–783.
39.
NelsonARobinsonJH (2014) The social life of DTC genetics: The case of 23andMe. In: KleinmanDLMooreK (eds) Routledge Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 108–123.
40.
OngA (2016) Fungible Life: Experiment in the Asian City of Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
41.
PanofskyADonovanJ (2019) Genetic ancestry testing among white nationalists: From identity repair to citizen science. Social Studies of Science49(5): 653–681.
42.
PengY (2020) Should we have a second child? Reproductive decisions and family negotiation under China’s two-child policy. Journal of Contemporary China29: 792–807.
43.
PinchT (1993) “Testing—One, two, three . . . testing!” Toward a sociology of testing. Science, Technology, & Human Values18(1): 25–41.
44.
PlominRVon StummS (2018) The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics19(3): 148–159.
45.
PollockNWilliamsR (2010) The business of expectations: How promissory organizations shape technology and innovation. Social Studies of Science40(4): 525–548.
46.
PopielarzPANealZP (2007) The niche as a theoretical tool. Annual Review of Sociology33(1): 65–84.
47.
PughAJ (2015) The Tumbleweed Society: Working and Caring in an Age of Insecurity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48.
RichardsonSS (2015) The trustworthiness deficit in postgenomic research on human intelligence. Hastings Center Report45(S1): S15–S20.
49.
RobinsonJH (2020) What the pregnancy test is testing. The British Journal of Sociology71(3): 460–473.
50.
RoseN (1998) Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power, and Personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51.
RothWDIvemarkB (2018) Genetic options: The impact of genetic ancestry testing on consumers’ racial and ethnic identities. American Journal of Sociology124(1): 150–184.
52.
SabatelloMInselBJCorbeilTLinkBGAppelbaumPS (2021) The double helix at school: Behavioral genetics, disability, and precision education. Social Science & Medicine278: 113924.
53.
ShiL (2017) Choosing Daughters: Family Change in Rural China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
54.
SimonsM (2006) Learning as investment: Notes on governmentality and biopolitics. Educational Philosophy and Theory38(4): 523–540.
55.
SmallML (2009) “How many cases do I need?” On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography10(1): 5–38.
SunSH-L (2017) Socio-Economics of Personalized Medicine in Asia. New York, NY: Routledge.
59.
TaberyJ (2015) Why is studying the genetics of intelligence so controversial?Hastings Center Report45(S1): S9–S14.
60.
TanCD (2021) Defending ‘snake oil’: The preservation of contentious knowledge and practices. Social Studies of Science51: 538–563.
61.
TanYTMcPhersonGEPeretzIBerkovicSFWilsonSJ (2014) The genetic basis of music ability. Frontiers in Psychology5: 658.
62.
TangCWFengWMBaoYZhuY (2014) Medication safety for children in China. The Lancet383(9927): 1462.
63.
WahlbergA (2018) Good Quality. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
64.
WangYFongVL (2009) Little emperors and the 4:2:1 Generation: China’s singletons. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry48(12): 1137–1139.
65.
WoronovTE (2009) Governing China’s children: Governmentality and “education for quality.”Positions: Asia Critique17(3): 567–589.
66.
XuJ (2017) The Good Child: Moral Development in a Chinese Preschool. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
67.
YangZ (2021) Deconstruction of the discourse authority of scientists in Chinese online science communication: Investigation of citizen science communicators on Chinese knowledge sharing networks. Public Understanding of Science. Epub ahead of print 16 April. DOI: 10.1177/09636625211005106.
68.
YiOu ZhiKu (2019) 消费基因检测行业白皮书 [Direct-to-consumer genetic testing industry white paper].
69.
ZelizerVA (1994) Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value of Children. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
70.
ZhuJ (2010) Mothering expectant mothers: Consumption, production, and two motherhoods in contemporary China. Ethos38(4): 406–412.
