March 26, 2025 - 2:35pm
Who wants to buy the genetic code of 14 million Westerners? DNA sequencing company 23andMe has filed for bankruptcy protection and is now up for sale. Users are now being advised to delete their accounts, though for many this advice arguably comes too late. But the real privacy concern should be the geopolitical one. In this context, the potential sale of millions of DNA sequences, most of them American, could sharpen a burgeoning debate in the US tech industry over which, if any, national loyalties Silicon Valley should espouse.
Founded in 2006 by Anne Wojcicki and two partners, 23andMe offers consumers the opportunity to send a saliva sample for sequencing, and receive a report on ancestry and health information. Despite celebrity endorsements and a valuation of $6 billion after listing in 2021, the company has never made a profit and is now seeking a buyer.
So, what will happen to its databases? 23andMe always emphasised its trustworthiness on data protection. But when it went public, privacy experts raised concerns over the increased number of shareholders with possible interests in bending the firm’s privacy rules to access its data. Last month, the undercover media outlet O’Keefe Media Group published a video conversation with a US Treasury advisor, who warned that the firm shares its data with shareholding companies, some of which are — he claims — owned by the Russian or Chinese governments.
Even if this is speculation, the firm’s own data policy states that, in the event of sale or bankruptcy, customers’ data is a saleable asset. California’s Attorney General has now advised anyone who has used the service to delete their account and data, and, if their saliva sample was stored, to request it be destroyed before the company is sold. But around 80% of 23andMe users have already consented to their DNA being used in research. And as one reporter noted after using the service, users who have given this consent cannot later revoke it. While the firm promised that data for medical research was only ever made available in anonymised form, whether this will remain the case is anyone’s guess. As a consumer-facing firm, 23andMe traded on its trustworthiness. Should its buyer start trading with businesses rather than individuals, all the incentives on privacy will flip, with the dataset more valuable the less privacy is afforded the individuals whose data it contains.
But what if the real concern isn’t individual privacy but national security? For while we are surely well into the age of Big Data and biotech, every day also brings a new headline underlining the fact that this is occurring in tandem with a return to great-power politics. Based on where it ships, 23andMe serves, in essence, wealthy, tech-curious consumers in the West: America and her allies. It’s not hard to imagine a hostile regime acquiring its database with malicious intentions, such as bioweapon development.
In his new book The Technological Republic, Palantir CEO Alex Karp critiques what he views as a naively universalist outlook in the US tech industry, as though global peace and transnational commerce are somehow guaranteed, forever. Karp disagrees, arguing instead that the American tech industry must abandon its squeamishness about defence, and urgently refocus on the national interest.
Was 23andMe an instance of such naive universalism? Doubtless Wojcicki only ever thought of 23andMe’s dataset in commercial, win-win terms: a source of benefits all round, whether from research, customised healthcare, or personal profit. A hostile polity exploiting a database containing millions of complete American genomes to as yet unimaginable military ends would have seemed like science fiction only a few years ago. But if Karp is right, this is no longer so far-fetched. Perhaps the real questions for any potential 23andMe buyer should not concern business intentions, but national loyalties.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeHaving followed this story in some detail, I’d say this is far too generous to Ms Wojcicki.
“Doubtless Wojcicki only ever thought of 23andMe’s dataset in commercial, win-win terms: a source of benefits all round, whether from research, customised healthcare, or personal profit.”
All the problems and risks with genetic data security were designed into this from day one. And it’s always been about making money. My understanding is that Wojcicki now wants to take her company private again, buying it back at a discount. And doubtless flip it on again later.
The assumption here that the data was somehow more secure before the bankruptcy and is at far greater risk afterwards seems rather naive.
If there are individuals linked to the data, Could be a huge money maker for insurance companies.
Contrary to some of the commenters, I think Ms Harrington’s concerns are cogent in the context of our times. We have already lost much of our privacy to data scraping, ubiquitous cameras, geolocation technology on our phones, and an unprecedented capacity to store data retrievably. As AI pulls further on all of these threads, the ability to preserve what privacy we’ve left will diminish even more. What isn’t said in her article, but which I believe she is also concerned about, is the “R” word. Less than a century ago in Europe a dark regime was in power and would have been delighted to have access to such genetic data to guide its genocide. We now again live in times where similar hatreds are resurfacing and growing. One may not assume that ten or twenty years from now our liberal democracies will remain as they now are.
Certainly loss of privacy is an issue. But to go from there to say that the bankruptcy of 23andme is a national security issue seems to misunderstand the issue.
There are several ways it could impact national security. Out of those 15 million (and millions of others who have and may in future have similar testing from other vendors like Ancestry.com) surely some are people who are or will be in positions of governmental authority. If they are identified as having genes that are associated with certain conditions (Alzheimer’s, etc.) that could be quite significant, rendering them vulnerable to blackmail or revealing weaknesses that would disadvantage them when dealing with foreign adversaries. If they are employed in clandestine services, their true identity could be easily confirmed by foreign counterespionage by simply retrieving a disposed paper cup they drank from at a Starbucks.
Interesting, but nothing special.
Just handle it as defense related contractor going bankrupt, and make sure that sale of assets is reserved for approved buyers (or burn the assets otherwise).
Adding “tech” to a topic does not always make it a strictly new situation.
Yeah, I don’t quite share Mary’s concerns beyond protecting people’s data (all data, not just genetic information).
23andme has a database of anonymized genetic data from thousands of customers. It’s my understanding most of the people are Americans so likely come from a wide range of ethnic, therefore genetic, backgrounds. It’s not clear to me what aspect of the data is America-centric. It’s not even clear the data is Caucasian-centric since many other ethnicities likely contributed. So how will China, or some other bad actor, use this data to target Americans, even if the database allows them to link genetic data to individual contributors to the database?
I was never comfortable with 23andme. I didn’t believe they could truly protect customers’ data. Indeed, from the article we learn that their standard contract has a provision stating the company’s data is a saleable asset in the event of bankruptcy etc.
Don’t give any company more personal data than absolutely necessary. I don’t know about national security, but they’ll certainly use your data to make as much money as possible.
Please stop the phone number. This is a very interesting article, and I have to say, I recently learned that the Chinese are buying a lot of data that might seem useless or meaningless. They’re purchasing it even when, like in this article, the data’s significance is obvious.
What’s concerning is that they’re collecting all kinds of data—possibly to decrypt it once they have access to quantum computers (and who knows, maybe they already do). This raises serious concerns, especially when it comes to sensitive data like DNA. It’s a gold mine, and we don’t yet fully understand what it could be used for.
This is, without a doubt, an issue of national interest—if national interest actually means protecting the people, not just serving business or political elites. In the real world, where data like this could influence health, identity, and security, it should be treated with the highest level of caution and public awareness.
If you are concerned with your email password, would not you even more concerned with your DNA!
No idea what drives volunteering this info. How insecure must one be to think doing this will give them answers of any meaning? Same with all the social net bores, what are they trying to achieve, what for? Who gives a fig, why are you so in need of validation? Pretty simple ; if you want to keep a secret , don’t tell anyone….
This company should have been taken private at a value that at least paid some value for the loyal investors who backed the vision of the founders. Given the deep pockets of the founders, it will doubless be phoenixed from the ashes with all other shareholders being left to lick their wounds
I like Mary Harrington’s writing, but lately she seems to be picking odd targets to shoot at and being a little off target anyway. The 23andme bankruptcy has been brewing for a while, and it is true that people do need to worry when a company they have a connection with does go bankrupt. But a national security threat? Not hardly.
I saw the same lack of perspective with Mary Harrington’s article on the New York Times op-ed column by Zeynep Tufekci that said we were fooled by experts during the pandemic. That wasn’t the New York Times changing its tune. That was Zenyep Tufekci playing the same tune she’s always played.
I know Mary Harrington has more good writing in store for us, and hope in future she picks better targets and nails them with her usual style and finesse.
Two topics in American politics I would like to see covered better at UnHerd are:
— The fuss about the top US military people talking about the politics of an upcoming strike on Houthis in Yemen on an insecure Signal app to which an outsider was mistakenly invited. Mountain or molehill? UnHerd seems to just parrot other media instead of taking a more sophisticated take.
— The deportation of Venezuelans illegally in the US, claiming they are an invasion force and putting them indefinitely in a prison in El Salvador where they are treated in a way that any US judge would deem cruel and unusual punishment. To me this is not being given the coverage in commentary that it deserves.
The two subjects you mention are serious “nothing burgers” and we should move on.
Since when are we concerned about a left wing media outlet receiving state department information first hand? Over the last 4 years our government handed out more “leaks” to the left wing media than they had on the Titanic. Suddenly we should be concerned about one more?
Since when are we concerned about the “rights” of murderous drug traffickers, who are here illegally in the first place?
You misunderstand my first suggestion. I would like to see Mary Harrington or someone else with like talent address the issue of why the media and the public can’t seem to move on from nothingburger stories like the Signal chat. I agree about the nothingburgerness of the story. Why are there so many articles about it? Why are we all so caught up in it?
My second suggestion is sort of the opposite. I would like to see some insights here on UnHerd about why the media and public see as a nothingburger the stories about law enforcement rounding up people and shipping them off to a barbaric prison in El Salvador in defiance of the courts. To me that is a huge story, conduct like we’ve not seen in the US for generations, yet it gets little mention, and those that do mention often approve of it (as you do).
Who cares. Grow up woman.