In this article we examine commodification and marketisation of genetic testing by companies offering direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing to the general public through online platforms in Hong Kong. Recently, offers of genetic testing have expanded from scientific and clinical genetic settings to general medicine (e.g. in hereditary cancer) and non-medical domains (e.g. aptitude tests). The wider availability of tests, however, has raised concerns about the currently available scientifically proven utility of these tests. Using theme-oriented discourse analysis, we analyse the specific discursive modalities through which the DTC companies in Hong Kong make inflated claims about the value of genetic tests to pursue their marketing agenda. We show that in this way the companies are selling ‘more’ than specific products to consumers: they are selling ‘hope’ and ‘increased autonomy’, that is, an opportunity to buy commodities online that promise consumers control of their health and wellbeing.
Agurs-CollinsTFerrerROttenbacherAet al. (2015) Public awareness of direct-to-consumer genetic tests: Findings from the 2013 U.S. Health Information National Trends Survey. Journal of Cancer Education30(4): 799–807.
2.
American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (2016) Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: A revised position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genetics in Medicine18(2): 207–208.
3.
Arribas-AyllonMSarangiSClarkeA (2011) Promissory accounts of personalisation in the commercialisation of genomic knowledge. Communication and Medicine8(1): 53–66.
BhatiaVK (2005) Generic patterns in promotional discourse. In: HalmariHVirtanenT (eds) Persuasion across Genres: A Linguistic Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 213–225.
6.
BlossCSOrnowskiLSilverEet al. (2010) Consumer perceptions of direct-to-consumer personalized genomic risk assessments. Genetics in Medicine12(9): 556–566.
7.
BurtonA (2015) Are we ready for direct-to-consumer genetic testing?The Lancet Neurology14(2): 138–139.
8.
CritchleyCNicolDOtlowskiMet al. (2015) Public reaction to direct-to-consumer online genetic tests: Comparing attitudes, trust and intentions across commercial and conventional providers. Public Understanding of Science24(6): 731–750.
9.
CrookJ (2004) On covert communication in advertising. Journal of Pragmatics36(4): 715–738.
10.
FaircloughN (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
11.
FaircloughN (1993) Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse & Society4(2): 133–168.
12.
FaircloughN (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
13.
FeatherstoneM (1991) Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London: SAGE.
14.
Fuertes-OliveraPAVelasco-SacristánMArribas-BañoAet al. (2001) Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics33(8): 1291–1307.
15.
GeransarREinsiedelE (2008) Evaluating online direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic tests: Informed choices or buyers beware?Genetic Testing12(1): 13–23.
16.
GoldsmithLJacksonLO’ConnorAet al. (2012) Direct-to-consumer genomic testing: Systematic review of the literature on user perspectives. European Journal of Human Genetics20(8): 811–816.
17.
GraySWO’GradyCKarpLet al. (2009) Risk information exposure and direct-to-consumer genetic testing for BRCA mutations among women with a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention18(4): 1303–1311.
HatimB (1990) The fuzzy nature of discourse in the translation process: Towards a text-based pedagogy of translation. In: AndermanGMRogersMA (eds) Translation in Teaching and Teaching Translation. Guildford: University of Surrey, pp. 105–124.
20.
HogarthSJavittGMelzerD (2008) The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics9: 161–182.
JanssensACGwinnMBradleyLAet al. (2008) A critical appraisal of the scientific basis of commercial genomic profiles used to assess health risks and personalize health interventions. The American Journal of Human Genetics82(3): 593–599.
23.
JanssensSKalokairinouLChokoshvilliDet al. (2015) Attitudes of cystic fibrosis patients and their parents towards direct-to-consumer genetic testing for carrier status. Personalized Medicine12(2): 99–107.
24.
KolorKLiuTPierreJSet al. (2009) Health care provider and consumer awareness, perceptions, and use of direct-to-consumer personal genomic tests, United States, 2008. Genetics in Medicine11(8): 595.
25.
KolorKDuquetteDZlotAet al. (2012) Public awareness and use of direct-to-consumer personal genomic tests from four state population-based surveys, and implications for clinical and public health practice. Genetics in Medicine14(10): 860–867.
26.
KressGVan LeeuwenT (2001) Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.
27.
LabradorBRamónNAlaiz-MoretónHet al. (2014) Rhetorical structure and persuasive language in the subgenre of online advertisements. English for Specific Purposes34: 38–47.
28.
LachanceCRErbyLAFordBMet al. (2010) Informational content, literacy demands, and usability of websites offering health-related genetic tests directly to consumers. Genetics in Medicine12(5): 304–312.
29.
LeaDHKaphingstKABowenDet al. (2011) Communicating genetic and genomic information: Health literacy and numeracy considerations. Public Health Genomics14(4–5): 279–289.
30.
LiuYPearsonYE (2008) Direct-to-consumer marketing of predictive medical genetic tests: Assessment of current practices and policy recommendations. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing27(2): 131–148.
31.
LuoZPZaytsOShipmanH (forthcoming) ‘His story is truly vivid …’: The role of narratives of vicarious experience in commodification and marketisation of genetic testing in Chinese social media. Journal of Pragmatics.
32.
McBrideCMWadeCHKaphingstKA (2010) Consumers’ views of direct-to-consumer genetic information. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics11: 427–446.
33.
MurrayABVCarsonMJMorrisCAet al. (2010) Illusions of scientific legitimacy: Misrepresented science in the direct-to-consumer genetic-testing marketplace. Trends in Genetics26(11): 459–461.
NordgrenAJuengstET (2009) Can genomics tell me who I am? Essentialistic rhetoric in direct-to-consumer DNA testing. New Genetics and Society28(2): 157–172.
RafiqMIanualeCRicciardiWet al. (2015) Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: A systematic review of European guidelines, recommendations, and position statements. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers19(10): 535–547.
38.
RobertsCSarangiS (2005) Theme-oriented discourse analysis of medical encounters. Medical Education39(6): 632–640.
39.
RobertsJSOstergrenJ (2013) Direct-to-consumer genetic testing and personal genomics services: A review of recent empirical studies. Current Genetic Medicine Reports1(3): 182–200.
40.
SingletonAErbyLHFoisieKVet al. (2012) Informed choice in direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) websites: A content analysis of benefits, risks, and limitations. Journal of Genetic Counseling21(3): 433–439.
41.
SuYHowardHCBorryP (2011) Users’ motivations to purchase direct-to-consumer genome-wide testing: An exploratory study of personal stories. Journal of Community Genetics2(3): 135–146.
42.
WesselJGuptaJDe GrootM (2016) Factors motivating individuals to consider genetic testing for type 2 diabetes risk prediction. PLoS ONE11(1): e0147071.
