DNA, HUMAN GENETIC DIVERSITY, AND THE COMPLEXITIES OF GROUP
MEMBERSHIP: GENEALOGICAL NARRATIVES, BIO-CULTURAL MEMORY,
POWER IN GENETIC KNOWLEDGE, AND THE COMMODIFICATION OF
ANCESTRY
I. Introduction: The Intersections of DNA, Identity, and Belonging
DNA has emerged as a potent means of investigating ancestry and group membership.
Hereditary DNA testing has changed the way that people think about their identity and place,
both in history and in a societal context. Companies that do ancestry testing sell their services as
a means for people to discover their biological origins, providing breakdowns of the ethnic
backgrounds and migratory habits of their customers. These tests draw on a demonstrable
interest in genetic identity, from the TV programs and films that can validate our cultural or
racial heritage with scientific means. Genetic ancestry testing has contributed to the widespread
notion that DNA can tell us unassailable truths about who we are and to whom we belong
(Krimsky & Sloan 2011). However, this assumption naïvely neglects how genetic data is
interpreted and staged by (commercial) scientific institutions. The results of ancestry tests are not
objective truths, but stories shaped by historical and sociopolitical forces. Such narratives
influence individual perceptions regarding genetic heritage, incorporating and reinforcing
certain categories of race or ethnicity and obscuring others. Thus, the significance of DNA to the
formation of identity is not just scientific but is inscribed in social and cultural frameworks
(Nelson, 2009). The popularity of genetic ancestry testing leads to significant questions
regarding science-driven definitions of race and ethnicity in the modern-day.
Genetic ancestry tests have complicate the formation of racial and ethnic identity. Direct-
to-consumer testing services promise users an insight into their ancestral backgrounds, linking
genetic markers to particular regions or ethnic groups. This has caused numerous people to
reevaluate their racial identities based upon DNA tests results, at times contradicting or
confirming previous conceptions of ancestry. Duster (2016) tracks a growing reliance on genetic
ancestry testing that has helped to further intensify and reinforce a geneticization of identity,
where one's racial or ethnic affiliation is understood as tied to a biological marker rather than a
social or cultural one. So this move is emblematic of something bigger in society, where genetic
data is created as an authority that subverts lived experience, history, etc. Duster (2016) does not
support the view that there is a gene or set of genes that define human ancestry, it goes further in
sparking ethical debates related to the use of genetic information in establishing racial
classifications. As TallBear (2013) illustrates, many Indigenous communities in particular resist
the use of genetic ancestry testing to determine tribal member status and recognize the way this
biological data fails to account for cultural knowledge and kinship connections. The large
market of ancestry testing lies like a scar across our collective imaginations, mirroring our
increasing obsession with genetics as identity, while simultaneously bolstering very have
fundamental misunderstanding of race as a static category that is biologically determined.
Perceptions of genetic diversity are the result of scientific, commercial, and
sociopolitical forces working in concert. As population lines are drawn and redrawn based on
genetic research, the categories that result often fall in line with traditional racial divisions under
the guise of scientific objectivity. Even more complicated about this landscape, the commercial
ancestry testing industry is presenting genetic results as definitive ethnic and racial identity
markers. Krimsky and Sloan (2011) take the view that genetic ancestry tests depend on
databases that are never complete and usually biased, producing misleading representations of
genetic heritage. Such limits demonstrate how genetic diversity is presented more as a
commodity science than a neutral analysis. Moreover, narratives on genetic ancestry are
embedded in the larger socio-political narratives that underlie what racial and ethnic identities
count as legitimate. As Nelson (2009) describes it that those who engage in genetic genealogy
(particularly in the context of African Americans) are seeking to reconnect with their ancestral
roots, but this reconnection is mediated by the historical legacies of slavery and colonialism.
Reinforcing some definitions of racial identity while marginalizing others, the way genetic
information is presented reflects how science, commerce and politics intertwine to create
identity. This intersection indicates that DNA testing cannot be seen simply as an individual or
scientific pursuit, rather it is a deeply inscribed sociocultural practice.
These dominant theories offer crucial insights into the consequences of genetic ancestry
testing. Genetic determinism posits that genes determine human characteristics, shoring up a
biological conception of race and ethnicity. This view has been roundly critiqued for neglecting
the social and cultural aspects of identity. Foucault's theory of bio-power describes processes of
population regulation in which scientific knowledge and genetic data exercises control over
biological matter influencing citizens' norms of racial inclusion. Genetic ancestry at the same
time reflects this power dynamic by representing DNA as an objective marker of an individual′s
or population′s identity, displacing history and culture (Duster, 2016). This is complicated by
the concept of genetic essentialism, where racial and ethnic identities are seen as biological and
immutable rather than socially constructed. TallBear (2013) also questions this assumption,
which has special implications for Indigenous identity, particularly when DNA is used to
establish or invalidate claims to Talib, or more specifically blood quantum, by claiming either
that there is no Indigenous blood in someone's lineage or, alternatively, that there is. When DNA
cannot account for everything about individuals and groups, it is increasingly becoming clear
that genetic means cannot offer the envisaged states of well-being, and there are indigenous
critiques against what the memes digital, such as meme theory, indirectly relate to racial science.
TallBear (2013) says these perspectives reveal the limitations of genetic ancestry testing and
encourage a critical approach to the ways in which DNA is tied to identity and belonging.
Genetic ancestry tests are not just a scientific tool; they are a deeply contested cultural and
political phenomenon.
II. The Promises and Pitfalls of Ancestry Testing in a Racialized Society
DTC genetic tests, which fill your mailbox and your social media feeds with DNA
ancestry testing, have shifted the paradigm through which we think of race and identity. These
tests allow people to explore their ancestral backgrounds and recontextualize their individual or
group narratives of heritage. [In age-appropriate cookie-cutter iterations of genetic testing, there
is a tendency for users to become dependent on DNA as a means of defining their racial and
ethnic heritages, often in predictable ways, a reflection of the very marketing practices that
genetic testing companies utilize. Since at least Nelson (2009), use of genetic genealogy testing
to provide scientific narratives have been debated, either upholding personal histories or
challenging them. It is deeply troubling that we are relying on genetic data to determine a sense
of belonging, as if it were a matter of DNA when it is not. Nelson (2009) says as these tests
grow in popularity, they play into and reinforce the concept that race can be genetically defined,
furthering the idea that genetics hold objective truths. Yet ancestry testing is a matter of
interpretation, guided by scientific institutions and corporate frameworks. Genetic tests or
genealogical tests can yield some genealogical information, but they are also limited in several
key ways (TallBear, 2013). Genetic identity is now hot fodder, with endless ethical and accuracy
questions at play in the coming months. This growing faith in DNA as a racial marker, if left
unexamined, may widen wedges of separation in society, not promote greater integration.
Geneticization of identity is a cardinal feature of contemporary ancestry testing.
Increasingly, people are using DNA to validate their racial and ethnic identities, challenging
established notions of social belonging in the process. The Historical Nature of Late Modern
Regarding legal evidence, Gonzales Rose (2016) argues that law's infrastructure has consistently
relied on racial evidence, which is reminiscent of the current shift towards genetic evidence.
Ancestry tests, too, tend to reinforce the idea that race is a stable biological “kind” rather than a
social category. This shift can be understood in a number of ways but begs the question of how
genetic narratives can supplant cultural and experiential accounts of identity. When the
characteristics that make a person a racial type rely on the data written in one’s DNA, as opposed
to one’s social or family relations, friction arises between self-identification and community
identification. Nash (2015) states that political effects of genetic ancestry tests can be
legitimizing, while also marginalizing other identities. The desire to see genetic markers as
absolute indicators of identity is a strand of a broader movement toward biological determinism.
These patterns are a signal for critical interrogation given that they risk re-instantiating long-
since outdated logics of race in disingenuous clothes of scientific neutrality. It also rewrites the
topography of data ownership by ceding the narrative of identity to the genetic testing
companies. As DNA testing becomes even more common in determining claims to identity,
questions of whether or not those claims are justified will remain relevant to both individuals and
the state as a whole.
DNA genetic markers, the basis for ancestry testing analysis, are used as well, but the
precision and reliability of these markers is an ongoing source of debate. Many companies boast
of the very high accuracy of their companies’ findings, but the analysis of genetic data is not so
straightforward. Genetic ancestry tests are based on reference populations that poorly represent
the world and yield misleading results (TallBear 2013). Those limitations mean it is virtually
impossible to determine ancestry with anything like full certainty, something consumers appear
to expect. The common belief is that DNA testing can provide definitive information about your
heritage, but those data are based on probabilities, not facts. That commercial sale of ancestry
reports tends to gloss over the inherent uncertainty behind their different potential
interpretations. And it also happens behind their genetic underpinning, with very negative
shadowy counterparts of the spectrum regarding how accurate any interpretation is screaming at
the opposite end of the spectrum. Because different companies generate different reports about
the same person, there is a lack of standardized regulatory oversight and a lack of consistent
genetic results (Nelson, 2009). As genetic testing services become more common, there even
remain debates about their scientific correctness. But consumers should continue to view their
ancestry results with a skeptical eye, recognizing that there is a difference between probabilistic
information and definitive answers. Surpassing industry standards in accuracy will be necessary
as genetics research advances, as it continues to do. Without regulation, these tests run the risk
of misleading their users and shaping their understandings of race and ethnicity, and
subsequently their census or post census decisions, with less-than-complete information on an
ongoing basis.
Therefore, the influence of corporations shaping ancestry testing fundamentally shapes
what individuals create and label their genetic heritage. Because these companies are brands
ultimately focused on profit rather than altruism, they have marketing strategies to create a
particular form of public social consciousness around race and identity. Commercial algorithms
not only guide financial practices they direct genetic classification, through hidden data models,
Corporations shape the structure of genetic databases ultimately determining in what way
consumers receive their results, interpret them (Bruckner, 2018). For White and Trump (2018),
corporate decision-making process is profit motives-driven which that undermines scientific
objectivity and subsequently trims the ways ancestry is categorized. Many consumers think that
their ancestry reports offer neutral, objective findings, but the reality is far more complex. This
is still very lucrative for these companies, a testament to the enormous interest in ancestry
tracing, and a testament to identity as a commodity. As per Trump (2018), the expanding
databases of companies that offer genetic testing services deepen genomic authority over racial
and ethnic categories and hone their power over public discourse. There will be continued ethical
challenges with genetic data commercialization, privacy and consent, in particular. Little
oversight risks shaping corporate interests. Companies will control the application and
interpretation of genetic science. To be sure, such concerns do warrant more transparency, so
consumers better know an ancestry test’s limitations and implications.
Ancestry testing offers promise and peril for Racialized peoples. A number of
communities use genetic testing as a tool to recover historical narratives disrupted by forced
displacement, colonialism, and systemic oppression. Castro-Villarreal, Villarreal, and Sullivan
(2016) note, for example, that social justice frameworks can focus on genetic testing as a tool to
restore erased histories. For instance, African American people have used DNA testing to trace
their African ancestry in an effort to reconnect lost lines of ancestry. While it has its prospects,
ancestry testing could also reinforce a kind of racial essentialism by making DNA the central
feature of identity. TallBear (2013) reflects on the growing appeal of genetic data as a means to
validate cultural belonging, citing cases in which Indigenous communities have resisted the
terms of use for DNA to qualify tribal membership. Abused blood descent uses the variety of
identities to biological labels, undermining association dimensions such as culture, lives, and
usage. In addition, while genetic testing can also bring awareness and empowerment to
racialized communities, it also raises important ethical considerations regarding who owns
genetic data, and for what purpose (Santoro and Broockman 2022). With wider availability of
these tests, they will increasingly influence discussions of race, belonging and lineage. The
genetics unleashes this knowledge, but only if we listen to the voices of these historically
marginalized groups can we hope to find a way forward with an ethical, inclusive, genetic
identity. The understanding and addressing of these complexities will require an interdisciplinary
approach, combining scientific perspectives with social and cultural conceptions of race.
III. Indigenous Epistemologies and the Critique of Genetic Essentialism
Critical of the nature of race-based genetic work, Indigenous scholars make clear that
increasingly popular ancestry testing is inherently limited in its efforts to define identity. Many
Indigenous scholars have argued that these genetic tools foist a foreign framework not suited to
Indigenous self-identification and kinship structures. By suggesting that Native identity can boil
down to its molecular markers, genetic ancestry tests challenge tribal sovereignty and cultural
continuity (TallBear, 2013). This omits the collective and political aspects of Indigenous
belonging, and reproduces colonial-era justifications that privilege scientific hegemony over
lived experience. Prioritizing genetic data leads researchers to overlook the sociopolitical
dimensions of the concept of Indigenous identity, which undermines the validity of traditional
knowledge systems (Duster, 2016). Those concerns go beyond a philosophical argument, as
genetic essentialism can have real-life legal and policy implications. However, if DNA testing
were to supplant traditional forms of identifying and proving Indigenous blood quantum, it
would delegitimize tribal governance, and compromise Indigenous rights and self-determination.
Indigenous scholars argue that research involving genetics needs to be conducted in relation to
the terms of Indigenous epistemologies rather than applying Western scientific norms that
exclude Indigenous standpoints (Krimsky & Sloan, 2011). This critique of genetic essentialism
makes no difference here; it is not an abstract notion but the basis of continued resistance against
settler-colonial structures that would have Indigeneity defined by outside verification.
Indigenous scholars and activists promote a more relational concept of identity, one based on
histories of ongoing relations, territorial dispossession, ethno nationalism, cultural imperialism
and ontology (Loh, 2020, p. 596). This resistance disrupts the hegemony of genomic science,
demanding ethical framework(s) that honor Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination.
The arbitrary nature of racial categories, as defined in Western science, makes the
limitations of race- based genetic research even more prominent. Geneticists often use these
sweeping racial classifications that cannot do justice to the complexities of human ancestry,
scholars say. As Morning (2018) argued, important questions within meanings attributed to race
in genetic research are neither biologically based nor socially constructed but remain salient in
scientific debate. This dependency on racialized genetic information reproduces outdated
typologies that have been historically drawn upon to legitimize colonial hierarchies and racial
stratification. Furthermore, Bolnick et al. (2007) contend and Understand. Still, commercial
ancestry companies promote their tests as definitive, informing public imaginations of race and
identity. These false representations also matter in the real world, especially for Indigenous
communities that define who belongs based on cultural and political connections, not genetic
markers. Because tribal enrollment process relies on genetic ancestry testing, when genetic
ancestry testing contradicts these tribal enrollment criteria, it can undermine Indigenous
governance by prioritizing science-formed classifications over community-formed criteria for
being (TallBear, 2013). In distilling race and ethnicity into genetic percentages, these tests hide
the historical and sociopolitical dimensions of identity formation. Calling for a critical re-
evaluation of genetic research, the scholars argue that interdisciplinary approaches integrating
social, historical and ethical dimension are.
The ethical frameworks governing the scientific endeavor are also unlikely to align with
Indigenous perspectives on genetic research. Many Indigenous scholars have critiqued the
extractive nature of genetic studies, in which scientific discovery often takes precedence over
community well-being. According to Garrison et al. (2019), a large number of genetic research
conducted with Indigenous populations is done without sufficient consultation or consent, which
has generated questions about ethics in research and data sovereignty. Given that genetic data
from Indigenous peoples have a complicated history of being used inappropriately (such as being
initially collected for one reason and then repurposed without community consent), this issue is
especially pertinent. This issue has fostered distrust between Indigenous communities and
genetic researchers, further amplifying historical tensions stemming from experimental
approaches to scientific inquiry (Smith, 2012) due to lack of informed consent in some studies.
Indeed, Indigenous scholars have argued that the commodification of genetic data threatens
Indigenous self-determination. Treating genetic information as a marketable commodity has the
potential to be exploited for commercial or governmental purposes in ways that can be at odds
with Indigenous values (Carroll et al., 2020). In response to these critiques, scholars call for
research frameworks that center Indigenous agency and sovereignty. As per Smith (2012), this
involves creating protocols that ensure meaningful community engagement, maintaining
Indigenous ownership and control over genetic data and integrating Indigenous knowledge
systems in methodologies for genetic research. Ethical research practices should instead be based
on reciprocal, respectful, and cooperative models, not extractionary ones that perpetuate settler
colonial power.
The history of Indigenous genetic data being misused makes the ethical situation of
genetic research ever more complicated. Indigenous communities have faced scientific
exploitation, the use of their genetic materials in ways that do not align with their sociocultural
and political interests. A notable example is the Havasupai Tribe, whose genetic samples were
collected for diabetes research and later used for unrelated studies without consent (Garrison,
2012). This case demystifies broader issues pertaining to the ethical conduct of genetic research,
especially connected to Indigenous populations long denied a seat at the scientific table. As
Marks (2017) explains, the history of genetic research in the West is intermingled with colonial
research projects that aimed to identify and dominate Indigene populations through bio
determinacy. Contemporary debates about genetic research ethics are informed by this history;
accountability and reparative measures are central to such discussions. As a result, Indigenous
researchers have begun arguing for the ways in which ethical breaches are not to be seen as
individual transgressions, but rather as components of an overarching phenomenon of scientific
colonialism which Centres settler interest at the expense of Indigenous rights and interests.
Reframing research paradigms is needed to tackle these challenges, which is accompanied by
unique ethical considerations that put Indigenous voices and ethical stewardship first this can be
done by implementing the author model. According to Marks (2017) explains that indigenous-
led research projects, the researchers say, present a model for doing genetic research with ethics
in mind, and ensuring that the research benefits Indigenous communities, not perpetrators of
long-standing wrongs.
Indigenous critiques of genetic research go beyond ethical considerations to contest the
epistemological underpinnings of genetic science. Indigenous scholars view Western conceptions
of genetic tracing as not applicable to their ways of understanding history or identity, because
they are relational and mutually intermingled, such as in the way of historical continuity
(TallBear, 2013). The process of unwittingly reducing identity to genes conforms to the pattern
of scientific reductionism that has characterized Euro-western science and persists today in the
dismissal of Indigenous ways of knowing. Genetic science, as Reardon and TallBear (2012)
explain, is often caricatured as interlaced with a positivist paradigm which places the empirical
data above the experiential and the cultural. This epistemological bias replicates colonial
hierarchies by positioning Western science as the final arbiter on matters of identity and
ancestry. Additionally, Indigenous scholars challenge the limits of genetic determinism, the idea
that one can explain identity and inheritance solely through genetic material. This view of ties
undermines the cultural, social, and historical shaping of Indigenous identities, producing an
exclusive and narrow sense of belonging (Marks, 2017). Indigenous scholars therefore question
these taken-for-granted assumptions in support of a genetic research approach that is less
colonial and more interdisciplinary (Mason et al. 2018). This involves integrating Indigenous
knowledge systems, acknowledging the problems of genetic essentialism, and creating
approaches that honour Indigenous ways of knowing. The critiques of genetic research are part
of a larger struggle around self-determination among Indigenous. Peoples, a reclamation of the
power to create knowledge outside of the colonial scientific paradigm and the recognition of
Indigenous sovereignty over identity and heritage.
IV. Genetic Genealogy, African Ancestry, and the Politics of Heritage
Genetic genealogy for tracing African ancestry has deep historical and sociopolitical
significance. During the transatlantic slave trade, African peoples were forcibly displaced from
their homelands and lost their ancestral connections, with many African descendants now
lacking a precise link to their roots. Over the past few years, genetic ancestry testing has become
an avenue to reconnect with lost heritage, a reclamation of sorts for those trying to reclaim what
was stripped away. However, the genotyping of African ancestry in DNA studies perpetuates an
essential genetic identity model by promoting the racialization of the trait. Duello et al. (2021)
that while these tests promise connection, they also move into question how genetic data is
embedded in wider sociopolitical frameworks. Genetic genealogy is situated within a colonial
and racial, and scientific, frame that has historically erased African-descended people. These
influences shape how genetics and genomics are understood in relation to populations, says
DNA science historian Kelly Frazer. According to Nelson (2009), the promise of African
ancestry through genetic testing should be situated against the backdrop of racial politics. DNA
results increasingly serve to validate racial identity within human classification. Genetic truths
can complicate the sense of identity that comes from culture, as the experience of being who you
are often might not match up with what the DNA says. Duello et al. (2021) adds that as genetic
genealogy becomes increasingly popular, a growing conversation calls for researchers and
participants to closely consider the social and historical ramifications of these works.
Genetic genealogy is critical in reestablishing the connection of African diasporic
communities with their ancestral origins. For many people of African descent, DNA tests offer a
new way to provide a tangible link to a region and ethnic group in Africa. Timothy and Guelke
(2016) refer to the family line as a common tool used to map personal pasts historically and to
reach emotional and identity-affirming purposes. While genealogical records and histories
become murky over time, genetic testing provides a scientific method of tracking ancestry across
the vagaries of history. But such discoveries can lead to surprising emotional and cultural
dilemmas. According to TallBear (2013), genetic ancestry testing enables complex negotiations
around identity formation whereby individuals must grapple with genetic results that may differ
from their life stories and family histories. While confirmation of African ancestry can be
uplifting or satisfying, it also raises issues of cultural rupture and the inability of genetic
knowledge to completely summarize historical identities. Some discover that their DNA is not
what their culture would be expected to say it is, but they cling to their results as a lifeline to an
African ancestry they can no longer live with, while others question their cultural upbringing
because their lived experiences do not reflect the countries their genes would suggest they belong
to. TallBear (2013) conclude that this tension maps onto the difference between genetic and
cultural identity and underscores the larger difficulty of constructing narratives of belonging
using DNA.
The commodification of African ancestry testing presents, therefore, intricate problems
around ethics and identity, not least as genetic testing companies offer their services to peoples
of African descent while asserting that DNA is the definitive arbiter of identity. Nelson (2009)
critiques this commodification of ancestry, as companies profit off of personal heritage yet
present genetic data as ultimate truth. This practice has raised serious concerns regarding who
owns this data as many companies still control customer DNA samples and related information,
frequently without clear consent mechanisms. Brodwin (2015) builds on this in the anthropology
context explaining how genetic essentialism reaffirms biological determinism most clearly
demonstrated by how identities become mere genetic narratives stripping away complex
histories. Commercial ancestry testing often flattens African heritage, offering fragmented and
reductive narratives about the continent’s complex histories. In rendering ancestry as mere
percentages of genetic markers, such services market the deeply personal heritage of African-
descended people as commodities, while sidestepping the sociocultural realities of such
individuals. This is an ethical concern with corporate responsibility impacting people's data
privacy and potential consequences of simplifying human identity to genetics. The ancestry
testing industry is growing rapidly, and this is a chance for us to reflect on not only how
scientific progress is made, but also how progress reflects our moral fabric. These concerns are
intimately related to the histories of African and African-descended people, the histories of
science more broadly, and the realities of race as a lived experience alongside its construction as
a genetic and biological fact.
The narratives around African ancestry testing are further complicated by the tensions
between genetic heritage and lived cultural identity. Most DNA tests indicate biological ancestry,
but that is not the same as cultural understanding or lived experience. Timothy (2016) describes
this as genealogical mobility, whereby people who have discovered roots in their ancestry
partake in heritage tourism as a means of establishing a sense of place with their confirmed roots.
It shows the wish of reconnect between between scientific discoveries to cultural belonging. In
contrast, the idea that DNA can provide the answer to who someone is, out of time and space, is
problematic (TallBear 2013). For African-descended populations, this tension, between genetic
markers and cultural identity, can be especially fraught, because many are cut off from the
languages, traditions and histories of their ancestors. According to Timothy (2016), it challenges
my idea that DNA could be a singular foundation for identity, reinforcing the premise that
historical and cultural narratives shape belonging. Regrettably, genetic genealogy is not a
substitute for the social and communal dimensions of cultural identity. Such an approach,
however, can miss the historical significance of projects like those on GeneTrade, and it is
important to acknowledge this in order to generate a more nuanced understanding of African
ancestry within the context of historical dislocation and cultural reclamation.
Research in men of African descent in genetics has historically faced dilemmas in ethics
and raised questions about consent, ownership of data, and representation. In the past,
marginalized communities have been abused in scientific studies without their knowledge or gain
in return. Duello et al. (2021) illustrate the way references to African ancestry in genetic
literature can occasionally reinforce racialized notions, contributing to the trajectory of
biomedical research in ways that can reproduce potentially harmful narratives. This raises
important ethical issues about how genetic data is collected, interpreted and used (Nelson,
2009). This created a context where it is vital that researchers applying such African genetic
data are cautious to ensure these data are not reinforcing colonial legacies or what has been
recently termed “data genocide” or, more generally, genetic essentialism fueling racially tinted
narratives. Even if data was used ethically, the question of who would benefit from genetic
research remains relevant. Corporate and academic institutions too often extract value from
genetic discoveries that do not bring direct benefits to the studied communities. Ethical research
requires more transparency, accountability, and community involvement. Good intentions are
great, but ethical research goes beyond that, it involves transparency, equity and true
collaboration. Scientists need to be moving beyond simply correcting historical wrongs and
actually be working against injustice in their own practices. Genetic research needs to produce
tangible benefits for the communities involved, rather than just benefiting academic and
corporate institutions. According to Duello et al. (2021), this starts with making meaningful
choices about ethical data practices, communicating findings in ways that empower
marginalized populations, and ensuring research implications benefit them, not contribute further
to persistent oppression.
V. Power, Commodification, and the Bio-politics of DNA
Corporations are heavily involved in constructing the narratives around genetic ancestry.
According to Zwick and Bradshaw (2018) discusses how ancestry testing companies market their
services has the power to shape public perceptions of race and heritage, given their status as
commercial entities. The characterization of genetic data as an absolute instrument for identity
strengthens the suggestion that DNA determines the belongingness of an individual to racial and
ethnic categories. As Jacobs (2020) notes, DNA ancestry advertising is premised in a neoliberal
subjectivity that combines the ethics of choice with the commoditization of genetic heritage.
This marketing approach implies that genetic data enables individuals to take ownership of their
identities, even when, in reality, test results are constrained by proprietary databases. These
databases, kept by private companies, advise how genetic information is classified and
communicates with consumers. Ancestry testing has been found to be susceptible to corporate
motives, raising concerns about the ways in which genetic information is packaged and sold to
the public (Bird & Lynch, 2019). By dictating not just the genetic reference groups but also the
narratives attached to results, companies are reinforcing existing models of race and also making
new kinds of identity possible through the lens of commercial science. And with increased
corporate involvement, genetic ancestry testing is increasingly used as tool for market agendas
rather than objective scientific discovery. As Jacobs (2020) notes, the overlap of commerce and
genetic science emphasizes the importance of engaging critically with the ethical and political
implications of ancestry testing. These tests should not be understood in a vacuum and
consumers need to realize they are subject to commercial imperatives that shape the way genetic
identity is produced and understood.
According to Geneticist, the commercialization of genetic information has turned DNA
into a product that can be sold as a resource in those industries involved in biotechnology. DNA
itself, as genetic testing has become more commonplace, is considered a product to analyze,
store and monetize. This transition does bring about ethical considerations related to control and
application of genetic data. According to Zwick and Bradshaw (2018), the commercialization of
DNA is part of a larger trend in biopolitical marketing that values the instantiation of biological
and social "life" or "social" constructs as commodities. This scenario plays out in the ancestry
testing industry, where consumers willingly use genetic material, unaware that their data can be
used for a different study, and even sold to third parties. Companies retain genetic information
long after the initial analysis is completed, using it in scientific studies, for pharmaceutical
developments and for corporate profit. Consumers are in a precarious situation, especially in
terms of transparency around these practices, as they often do not know how their genetic
materials are in fact being used (Dupras & Ravitsky, 2016). But even as ancestry tests promise
particular insights into personal identity, they feed the larger creation of corporate genetics
databases that have interests other than those of individual consumers. According to Tierny
(2016), the ramifications of this DNA for sale are extensive in the domains of privacy and
consent, as well as the ethics surrounding genetic research. The diagnostic companies have
ownership of our personal genetic data, untethered from strong regulations.
Thus, understanding emerging economic dynamics around genetic ancestry tests is
through the frame of biocapitalism. According to Tierney (2016), this idea emphasizes the ways
that biological materials, like DNA, are extracted, processed, and commercialized in global
marketplaces. The ancestry testing industry is an excellent example of biocapitalist expansion,
as genetic information is reused for several commercial purposes. Assisted reproductive
technologies and genetic research both display the growing commodification of life sciences
(Bogeljic, 2015). This dynamic exists within the context of the ancestry testing industry as well,
where our genetic information is not only utilized for identity exploration or personal discovery
but is also repackaged into commercial endeavors. Consumers submit their DNA in exchange for
information about their ancestry, but their genetic data often becomes part of larger corporate
ambitions. Pharmaceutical companies have access to genetic datasets which they can use to
create more specific medical treatments and as such show the speculation between ancestry
testing becoming incorporated into the biomedical industry (Tierney, 2016). This dynamic begs
the question, who profits from genetic data monetization? And should people in a capitalist
society have more control over their biological information? The issue of consent, exploitation,
and data ownership will remain one of the central concerns for biocapitalism within the ancestry
testing industry as genetic databases only continue to grow.
Who controls genetic databases is closely connected to broader political and ethical
debate. Although consumers have personal motives for engaging in ancestry testing, their genetic
data joins into a much larger system of knowledge production. Companies purport to offer
scientific insights, but the categorization of genetic ancestry is a profoundly negotiated process
shaped by corporate interests. According to Bird and Lynch (2019) biopolitical governance
exerts a crucial influence on the categorization, analysis, and application of genetic information.
However, defining ancestry through genetic data is not equally distributed, as corporate and
institutional actors retain the power to shape the frameworks in which results are interpreted.
According to Bird and Lynch (2019), these power dynamics create disturbances concerning
education regarding genetics, including for marginalized communities who have historically
been left out of scientific experimentation. Decisions regarding which populations are included
in these databases and the narratives of ancestry proffered by their results are made by the
genetic testing companies that shape their findings (Jacobs, 2020). Excluding certain groups only
perpetuates historical patterns of scientific bias, thus complicating the politics behind genetic
classification. Addressing these disparities demands closer inspection of how genetic databases
are created and sustained, and who gets to add to and benefit from them.
Surveillance is increasingly based on genetic data since genetic information, once
thought to be a private matter, is increasingly being subjected to government and corporate
scrutiny. There have been concerns about violations of privacy and consent when it comes to
identifying criminal suspects using genetic databases. The genomic surveillance is arguably a
part of a larger field of biomedical developments that serves the aims of biopolitical control
(Dupras & Ravitsky, 2016) as biological information comes to be used to govern the population.
The original article describes how compelling consumer DNA databases to assist forensic
investigations raises ethical questions about the balance between public safety and individual
rights, will this change how people think about the role of DNA in their own genetic promises?
Although genetic testing companies often claim that they will protect the privacy of consumers
maintaining the confidentiality of any genetic data (Landau, 2016), many have made access to
their databases available to law enforcement without clear user consent. According to Tierney,
2016), all of these practices highlight the dangers behind the collection and storage of genetic
data, especially when there is a factor of missing clear regulatory frameworks. It is also true that
other edifice eaters might not yet have twigged that a globule of drool can result in nary an alibi
of where they might have come from. As per Landau (2016), implications that genetic
surveillance can be a vehicle for exacerbating both racial profiling and institutional
discrimination further underline the need to grapple with the ethical questions surrounding the
collection and use of genetic data. As the line becomes blurred between identity and surveillance,
genetic privacy will become an important discussion to ensure that any policies and legislation
surrounding the matter do not infringe upon a person.
VI. The Future of Group Membership in the Age of Genetic Science
The increase in understanding of genetics is changing the way that race and ethnicity are
perceived. Genetic ancestry testing has become popular, enabling people to analyze their lineage
with increasing precision. These tests use databases that match individuals genetic markers to
geographic areas based on probability models (Duster, 2016) Though this technology sheds light
on human migration patterns, it simultaneously reaffirms racial categories that have been
socially constructed and not biologically distinct. The revival of racial essentialism mediated by
genetic science has led to discussions about the consequences for identity and belonging. The
proponents of such tests say they offer a feeling of cultural belonging, while critics warn that
they turn race into a something scientific. In particular, the interfacing of race and genetics has
found its way into laws of citizenship and legal recognition (Krimsky & Sloan, 2011). Genetic
data is thus being increasingly used, which raises moral questions about privacy, misuse, and the
propagation of exclusionary narratives. Critical race studies scholars are sounding alarm bells
that genetic determinism threatens to oversimplify the intricacies of identity. The DNA-based
understandings of belonging fundamentally challenge the ability of Indigenous frameworks of
kinship and tribal versus genetic relationships. According to TallBear (2013), as advances in
genetic science continue, we must engage with this work across disciplines to avert the
weaponization of scientific findings as a rationale for racial or ethnic hierarchy.
Governments are harnessing genetic science for border control and citizenship claims,
leading to DNA nationalism. A few nations have embraced ancestry testing as a means of
establishing eligibility for immigration or naturalization. As Nelson (2009) notes, genetic
ancestry results have made their way into legal cases in which individuals seek citizenship or
recognition of indigenous status. Depending on the context, genetic evidence can be unreliable
and ethically problematic. Genetic markers may suggest ancestral origins, but do not establish
cultural, linguistic or political loyalties. Countries that incorporate DNA tests into their
immigration policies risk reproducing exclusionary practices favoring some genetic lineages over
others. As per Duster (2016), this trend is part of a larger movement toward biological
determinism in the governance of the state. The border control application of genetic data
resonates with historical imperatives to govern national belonging through racial observation.
Critics of DNA-based nationalism contend that such forms of identification undermine the social
definitions of identity shaped by lived experience, as opposed to the sequence of genes. Genetic
essentialism ignores historical as well as social and political aspects of ethnicity (Krimsky &
Sloan, 2011). As governments begin to leverage genetic data, ethical and legal frameworks need
to be established to mitigate against discriminatory practices. The lesson DNA nationalism
offers is in the tension between scientific achievement and the perpetuation of exclusionary
ideologies.
The use of genetic ancestry as evidence to support claims to citizenship, land or
reparations presents legal and ethical challenges. Genetic evidence has been introduced in court
cases related to Indigenous land rights and debates over reparations for African Americans. For
example, in Native American DNA, tribal belonging and the false promise of genetic science,
critiques the assumption that ancestry DNA testing constrains Native belonging, arguing that
Indigenous identity derives from tribal kinship relations, rather than indicators of genetic
distance (TallBear, 2013). But the legal system has more and more treated genetic ancestry as
relevant evidence in fights over heritage and belonging. This change has generated concern over
whether genetic data should be used to delineate collective rights. Genetic ancestry, as per Duster
(2016) does not do justice to the historical injustices and cultural processes that influence human
beings. Courts that recognize DNA results as definitive evidence of identity run the risk of
denigrating old ways of establishing membership. Therefore, the application of genetic science
in legal claims mirrors larger arguments over reparation policies. Some advocates argue that
ancestry testing strengthens reparations claims because such tests establish direct lineage back to
enslaved ancestors (Nelson, 2009). Others warn that even genetic evidence is not enough to fix
the systemic inequities born from historical oppression. In order to prevent adding another layer
of biological reductionism, legal frameworks need to balance scientific findings with lived
realities of affected communities.
A growing reliance on DNA fingerprints of identities has led to critiques of genetic
identity politics. Critical race studies scholars question genetic make-up in this way to properly
represent social identities. Krimsky and Sloan (2011, 2) claim that even race is now being taken
a s biological and racialized through the contemporary interest in genetic heritage as biological
criteria, a process that they argue promotes biological determinism, specifically about race, by
obscuring the distinctness of its social and historical context. As per TallBear (2013), this
critique carries over to the commodification of genetic testing, which private corporations tout
as definitive indicators of identity in relation to ancestry tests. The commodification of genetic
lineage threatens to overwrite lived experiences with simplistic, commodifiable narratives. Gene
tests do not decide cultural affiliation, nor can all that defines an Indigenous person be
encapsulated in DNA sequences. Similar issues arise in discussions surrounding racial identity
verification in the political and legal arenas. Duster (2016) explains that the frequent appeal to
genetic evidence may more likely divide rather than unite diverse populations in a quest for
inclusivity. The emergence of genetic identity politics is a symptom of wider social anxieties
regarding belonging and authenticity. Some consider ancestry testing one avenue for reclaiming
a lost heritage, but others warn against the reinforcement of racial hierarchies entrenched in the
language of science. A broader perspective on identity must reconcile genetic evidence with the
historical, social and ethical dimensions of who we are.
The interplay of genetic science, identity, and social justice requires an interdisciplinary
perspective. This combined approach of genetics with historical and sociological perspectives
offers a holistic view of identity formation. According to Backstrom et al. (2006), group
membership is a process that is ever-evolving and dependent on social, political, and genetic
factors. This idea contradicts the deterministic argument that we are solely created by our genes.
Some bioethicists insist on the importance of coming up with ethical frameworks which can
understand the implications of genetic research on marginalized communities (Dunbar et all.,
2018). Without oversight, however, genetic science can be misapplied to entrench
discriminatory regimes. The contextualization of human genetic variation mapping should be
within broader discussions of power and inequality. “Genetic genealogy should not replace the
historical records and oral traditions from which genealogical information has normally been
drawn, but it should serve to supplement that" (Nelson, 2009). Policies are needed to avoid using
ancestry testing to exclude identities in group membership in the genetic era. Krimsky and Sloan
(2011) asserts that a focus on interdisciplinary collaboration as genetic technologies become
ever more capable enables scientists to pursue progress that benefits equity and inclusion.
VII. Conclusion: Rethinking Identity Beyond DNA
The science of DNA testing has changed how people think about ancestry, race and
group membership. According to TallBear (2013), genetic testing has become a popular tool for
examining personal lineage, but its consequences go well beyond personal identity. While race
and ethnicity are socially constructed categories, the growing popularity of direct-to-consumer
ancestry tests have given the impression that genetics offer objective truths about these subjects.
Because of this, genetic data is socially situated in this Conflict or Reductionist framework, with
their findings used to interpret the rest of their racial information, altering perceptions of identity
in a way that is not necessarily reflected in historical or cultural rank (Krimsky & Sloan, 2011).
Such genomic obsession has both empowered self-identification and reified essentialist
understandings of human difference. Yet, genetic testing also risks oversimplifying complex
cultural and social affiliations, albeit offering the opportunity for meaningful connections to
ancestral histories (TallBear, 2013). With the prevalence of genetic ancestry testing, it is
imperative that we take a critical approach that acknowledges the potentially nebulous and
interpretive nature of DNA analysis. Without careful scrutiny, these tests might only serve to
perpetuate outdated notions of race rather than challenge them. How DNA is used to articulate
identity should be understood against a wider socio-political background. In light of these recent
developments, all discussions of ancestry must now prioritize both scientific insights and the
lived realities they reflect across diverse communities.
And this context also shows the limitations of biological essentialism as the basis for
identity. But the notion that DNA is all that defines race or ethnicity supersedes the cultural,
historical and social layers of belonging. Duster (2016) notes how genetic testing tends to reduce
identities to a set of biological markers, picking up on the essentializing long fraught with how
communities picture themselves through shared traditions, histories and lived experiences. Such
a reductionist approach fosters a limited perspective on human diversity, viewing race and
ethnicity as static categories rather than as ever-evolving social constructs. ๋
Resistance to
genetic tests as answering the question of whether someone is in a tribe (or who belongs to a
tribe) has come from many Indigenous communities, who argue that “where one is from” is a
matter of cultural, not genetic evidence (TallBear, 2013). The even larger issue of how we relate
to ancestry testing commercially muddies these discussions further, since corporate bodies often
serve websites that seek blood over bonds, white out the complexion of our shared narrative.
Genetics helps us map human traffic, migration, wich populations contributed to the others and
of course, who married who, although we still need to read and study our own history. To move
past biological essentialism, one must recognize that identity is more than his or her DNA and
that larger social and historical synergies also play a role in shaping it. A more nuanced
understanding of ancestry has to take into account both genetic discoveries and the variety of
how people define their own identities.
Exiting the binary of DNA-based identity requires thinking of identity as fluid and
multidimensional. Identity is a lived experience shaped by historical, social and cultural forces,
rather than a static or biologically based construct. Nelson (2009) contends that genetic
genealogy offers African-descended populations a means of claiming ancestral linkages, but that
these need to be contextualized in wider histories of displacement and resistance. Likewise,
many racialized groups utilize DNA testing to reaffirm opposing narratives regarding their
origins, all with their own definitions of identity (Duster, 2016). That genetic testing can confirm
or undermine personal and collective histories speaks to the necessity of an interdisciplinary
project that draws on science and social analysis. This view of identity as fluid undermines the
assumption that genetics exclusively determines who belongs where. Ancestry research must
transition away from simple genetic narratives and toward a more contextualized understanding
of identity. As the other uses of genetic testing expands, more conscious efforts must be made to
keep such conversations sensitive to the stories and autonomy of varied communities. Only this
renders possible a full acknowledgment and respect for the complexities of human identity.
References
Backstrom, L., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., & Lan, X. (2006, August). Group formation in
large social networks: membership, growth, and evolution. In Proceedings of the 12th
ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp.
44-54).
Bird, G., & Lynch, H. (2019). Introduction to the politics of life: A biopolitical mess. European
Journal of Social Theory, 22(3), 301-316.
Bogeljic, B. (2015). Third-Party Reproduction: Assisted Reproductive Technologies,
Commodification and Biopolitics (Doctoral dissertation, Carleton University).
Brodwin, P. (2015). Genetics, identity and the anthropology of essentialism. In 'Mixed
Race'Studies (pp. 116-122). Routledge.
Bruckner, M. A. (2018). The promise and perils of algorithmic lenders' use of big data. Chi.-Kent
L. Rev., 93, 3.
Castro-Villarreal, F., Villarreal, V., & Sullivan, J. R. (2016). Special education policy and
response to intervention: Identifying promises and pitfalls to advance social justice for
diverse students. Contemporary School Psychology, 20, 10-20.
Devitt, M. (2021). Defending intrinsic biological essentialism. Philosophy of Science, 88(1), 67-
82.
Duello, T. M., Rivedal, S., Wickland, C., & Weller, A. (2021). Race and genetics versus ‘race’in
genetics: a systematic review of the use of African ancestry in genetic studies. Evolution,
medicine, and public health, 9(1), 232-245.
Dunbar, C. E., High, K. A., Joung, J. K., Kohn, D. B., Ozawa, K., & Sadelain, M. (2018). Gene
therapy comes of age. Science, 359(6372), eaan4672.
Dupras, C., & Ravitsky, V. (2016). Epigenetics in the Neoliberal “Regime of Truth” A
Biopolitical Perspective on Knowledge Translation. Hastings Center Report, 46(1), 26-
35.
Duster, T. (2016). Ancestry Testing and DNA: Uses, Limits–and Caveat Emptor 1. In Genetics
as social practice (pp. 59-71). Routledge.
Gone, J. P. (2019). Considering Indigenous research methodologies: Critical reflections by an
Indigenous knower. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(1), 45-56.
Gonzales Rose, J. B. (2016). Toward a critical race theory of evidence. Minn. L. Rev., 101, 2243.
Halverson, C. M. (2022). Genetic essentialism and social warranting. Perspectives in Biology
and Medicine, 65(3), 396-414.
Jacobs, E. (2020). Liquid Genealogy: Choice, Race, and Neoliberal Subjectivity in DNA
Ancestry Advertising. ASJ Occasional Papers, 17.
Klingele, C. (2015). The promises and perils of evidence-based corrections. Notre Dame L.
Rev., 91, 537.
Krimsky, S., & Sloan, K. (Eds.). (2011). Race and the genetic revolution: Science, myth, and
culture. Columbia University Press.
Nash, C. (2015). Genetic geographies: The trouble with ancestry. U of Minnesota Press.
Nelson, A. (2009). Genetic Genealogy Testing and the Pursuit of African Ancestry. Scientific
Cultures-Technological Challenges: A Transatlantic Perspective, 8, 125.
Santoro, E., & Broockman, D. E. (2022). The promise and pitfalls of cross-partisan
conversations for reducing affective polarization: Evidence from randomized
experiments. Science advances, 8(25), eabn5515.
TallBear, K. (2013). Native American DNA: Tribal belonging and the false promise of genetic
science. U of Minnesota Press.
Tierney, T. F. (2016). Toward an affirmative biopolitics. Sociological Theory, 34(4), 358-381.
Timothy, D. J. (2016). Genealogical mobility: Tourism and the search for a personal past.
In Geography and Genealogy (pp. 115-135). Routledge.
Timothy, D. J., & Guelke, J. K. (2016). Geography and genealogy: Locating personal pasts.
Routledge.
Van Meijl, T. (2019). Doing Indigenous epistemology: internal debates about inside knowledge
in Māori society. Current Anthropology, 60(2), 155-173.
Warin, M., Kowal, E., & Meloni, M. (2020). Indigenous knowledge in a postgenomic landscape:
The politics of epigenetic hope and reparation in Australia. Science, Technology, &
Human Values, 45(1), 87-111.
White, A., & Trump, K. S. (2018). The promises and pitfalls of 311 data. Urban affairs
review, 54(4), 794-823.
Writing group Writing group leaders Pathak Gita A. 6 Andrews Shea J. 7 Kanai Masahiro 2,
Manuscript analyses team leader, Manuscript analyses team member: meta-analysis
Mehtonen Juha 1, Manuscript analyses team member: heritability, methods and
supplements, Manuscript analyses team member: PHEWAS, Manuscript analyses team
member: Mendelian randomization, ... & Paccapelo, C. (2021). Mapping the human
genetic architecture of COVID-19. Nature, 600(7889), 472-477.
Zwick, D., & Bradshaw, A. (2018). Biopolitical marketing and the commodification of social
contexts. In The Routledge companion to critical marketing (pp. 430-438). Routledge.
