From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine / Medical genetics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Companies (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Genetics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


This article really, really reads like an ad.

To the precious poster who did not sign, I agree. I'm adding a tag to address this.TPREX (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree that this is ad-like. I note in particular that care is taken to avoid names of competing vendors, placing in context of existing and better established genetic tests, etc. (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It reads like an ad and does not mention other companies. Moreover, there's a lack of any criticism and objectivity on the usefulness of results given to clients. It has been shown that many deseases are not governed by an existing genetic predisposition but more by lifestyle, nutrition, exercises... In 2010, a blog of the scientific magazine Nature reported that 23andme had mixed up samples of 96 clients. ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The 'Media' section is unusually large and does not contribute to the scope of the article to give facts on the company. I would shorten it to a single sentence that mentions that the company has been featured widely in the media linked to a few sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


There have been a number of news articles about this company (and its competitors) relatively recently, which could be used as sources in an expansion of this article. I may do it myself later, but in case anyone gets to it before I do, here are some which may prove useful:

It's also all over various blogs, for those who wish more background, but those are of course generally not considered reliable sources.

Thanks, JavaTenor (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Name origin[edit]

I think it would be interesting to note the origin of the company's name, especially for non-native English speakers. (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wired article referenced at the end of the entry says "The company's name is a reference to the 23 pairs of chromosomes that contain our DNA." I'm guessing that they wanted the shortest possible (yet still intelligible) name based on that. Bricology (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Reassessment for WikiProject Medicine[edit]

Hello. I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article is already under has our tag, I have now reassessed it to make sure if is in the right WikiProject. Upon reassessment of the article, I'd like to make a few points, as shown below:

  • Reassess article with class and importance factors
  • Reassessed tags for correct placements

Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. I'm glad this article could fall within our scope, and I hope to see it grow large! Many thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Catalog of Medical Genetics Companies[edit]

This article begins with a mini-catalog of companies in the field. Maybe such a catalog would be more appropriate in the Medical genetics page. Genomas [1] is another genetic medicine company to include in such a catalog. Page Notes (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Logo or something[edit]

Is it possible to get a logo (even low-res) to represent the article? (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Last line, "However, critics warn..."[edit]

"However, critics warn in the scientific literature that health predictions are not currently effective enough to have any clinical utility.[11]" Regardless of the citation, I don't believe the line contributes anything to this article. It would be more relevant and appropriate to discuss opinions regarding health predictions elsewhere. To me, there doesn't appear to be a good reason for this line to be in this article and I think it should be deleted.Russell Dent (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I would nuke that as well. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources on the FDA communication to 23andMe[edit]

I thought it might be helpful to collect here a list of sources about 23andMe and its current communication with the FDA. I'll start with one here; feel free to add others by replies or edits to this talk page section.

-- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Blaine Bettinger has included a list of articles on his website. HelenOnline 04:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I found another one overnight.

-- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's another good source, which I'm surprised isn't already used in the article.

Hensley, Scott (25 November 2013). "FDA Tells 23andMe To Stop Selling Popular Genetic Test". National Public Radio: All Things Considered. 

There are some good quotations from experts there. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are some related commentaries on this, with the first being an annotated set of links.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing guide for articles on medical topics[edit]

The problem with this article on Wikipedia for a long time is that it has been sourced from company press releases rather than from independent journalistic and scientific sources. For a company whose products and services are tied up with medical claims, as 23andMe's products and services undeniably are, it is important to source this article as much as possible according to the Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources for medicine. There is a lot of discussion in the medical literature about how reliable gene tests are, to date, in identifying human disease risk, and I cite some of the current sources in a broader source list on genetics and human biology, which I share with all Wikipedians so that you can use the sources to verify articles. (You are also very welcome to suggest new sources for that source list. Medical sources, which I can check at a comprehensive biomedical library in my town, are especially welcomed as suggestions.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sloppy interpretation of sources[edit]

Several recent additions to the article have included sloppy interpretation of sources and lack of fact-checking (e.g. basing interpretation on the headline instead of the facts behind the story). Please be careful, especially when we are talking about legal issues. It is also worth reading and citing different sources to get the full story. HelenOnline 09:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's another good source. I Had My DNA Picture Taken, With Varying Results -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not specific to 23andMe though (and anecdotal evidence). It may be useful for the more general articles on genetic testing to present views of people like Craig Venter. HelenOnline 07:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

23andme does not sell health assessments[edit]

I tried to correct the article, but someone reverted it. 23andme used to sell them, and may or may not do it in the future, but it does not do it now. It allows old customers to view previously bought info, but the article should not say that the company is selling assessments. Roger (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The article only says 23andMe offers a DTC DNA testing service. I reverted your edit and repeated the suspension issue which was already covered in a later section because your edit ignored the fact that the vast majority of customers still have access to their health results and new customers may at some later stage. The wording may need some tweaking as long as it covers the facts. HelenOnline 19:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The article says: "Results are posted online, along with an assessment of inherited traits, genealogy, and possible congenital risk factors". That is false. The company is not currently in the business of selling any health-related assessments. Roger (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Source? This kind of editing question is easily resolved by recommending some reliable, secondary sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Just look at their home page. It says this, with a big exclamation point at the top: "23andMe provides ancestry-related genetic reports and uninterpreted raw genetic data. We no longer offer our health-related genetic reports." The WP article is written to describe that product that the company quit selling 7 months ago. [2] Roger (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Why are you only quoting part of the sentence here? The article now (after my edit mentioned in my initial reply above) says "Results are posted online, along with an assessment of inherited traits, genealogy, and possible congenital risk factors, although health-related results for customers who purchased the test from November 22, 2013 have been suspended while undergoing regulatory review." HelenOnline 07:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I copied the sources from the section below, so sources are not an issue. The sentence wording could probably be improved, as long as half the story is not removed which is what happened. HelenOnline 07:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I quoted the part that is false. No source says it. Roger (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
We have not reached consensus and the only place edit warring will get you is blocked. HelenOnline 15:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Schlafly Are you suggesting that Wikipedia does not reflect the sources cited, or that the sources themselves are incorrect? I fail to understand your rationale for removing this information. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

All of the sources say that 23andme does not sell health-related assessments. I edited the WP article to reflect that fact. Roger (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
HelenOnline and WeijiBaikeBianji, Schlafly likes the sources but feels they were not presented correctly on Wikipedia. The sources actually say that 23andme does not sell health-related assessments. Do you agree that the sources say this? Do you agree that Schlafly's edits reflect the sources? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the statement that would reflect current reality in article text (I am basing this mostly on what Helen said) is that 23andMe is not currently marketing health-related assessments, but still allows access to information from the tissue samples for previous customers. I am not a customer, but it does look to me from the published sources like 23andMe ceased an earlier practice without completely closing up shop. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
That section of the article does not use the word "sell" or mention offering health analysis per se. Later on in another section the article says: "As of December 5, 2013, 23andMe is only selling raw genetic data and ancestry-related results." Health results are still posted online for older customers (which was well-sourced). I was happy to work together towards an acceptable consensus wording incorporating all the facts (which were already in the article albeit not in that section) but Roger apparently was not. HelenOnline 08:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I initiated the discussion on this page in order to improve the accuracy of the article. I changed "pending FDA approval" because we don't know what application might be pending. I qualified the Time award, because that was for the health results that are no longer offered. I added that signups have slowed as a result of the FDA orders. I welcome further improvements. Roger (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Initiating a discussion doesn't mean you can do whatever you want without consensus, and your new (and old) edits need sources. And no, I won't clean up your mess just so you can revert me. HelenOnline 12:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
HelenOnline - I am still not sure what is wrong with the content, other than references being removed. Schlafly - You deleted citations to reliable sources, and I am not sure why. Since this content is being questioned I think that every sentence should have a citation after it. As Helen says, content without sources is generally considered worse than content with sources, and usually stands during discussion. How would you feel about re-adding or replacing the references you removed so that every sentence has a citation? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Apart from removing reliable sources, which I had added to support his first edit, it wiped out content about what the product initially included and still does for older customers. We had already covered the suspension of health analysis for new clients later in the article and I don't have a problem repeating it in the earlier section with sources, and tried without success to achieve a consensus wording. HelenOnline 14:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This article is not meant to be an advertisement and nobody should be buying the product based on one sentence in it (reading the whole article would make everything abundantly clear). Ignoring the health focus of this company, even if this changes permanently and irrevocably in future, would make it an extremely unbalanced article. HelenOnline 15:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
It also removed context for the whole regulatory section. A better question might be to ask Roger why he insists on removing it. HelenOnline 15:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I added the FDA references back in. The article does have the warning that it "appears to be written like an advertisement." It does not seem important or significant to me that the company continues to allow old customers to view the reports that they previously purchased and accessed, or that purchasers who did not get what they were promised were offered a refund. It might be news if the company failed to do these things. Companies change their product offerings all the time, and how they manage the transition is just not interesting. I doubt that an article about 23andme today would mention it. But go ahead and tell me if I am wrong. Roger (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
That warning is not an invitation to make it more like an advertisement, quite the opposite. The company has to date been primarily focussed on health analysis and research, so not covering how that has worked in the past and continues to work for at least 500,000 customers makes no sense especially when we go on to discuss problems that arose with the regulators as a result of it. HelenOnline 16:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is also not a newspaper, so that comparison is irrelevant. HelenOnline 17:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────In the absence of a response, I have restored balance to the article, and in the process expanded the product description. Please discuss here if necessary. HelenOnline 13:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that you made about 50 edits. I agree with whoever said that the article reads like a company advertisement, so I have restored that warning at the top. In particular, I think that it is very misleading for the lead paragraph to brag about 23andme having an invention of the year, and not mention that the FDA has ordered that product discontinued. Roger (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I have made a lot of changes since that tag was added, and you have addressed the lead. I would hate to think all that effort was in vain. WeijiBaikeBianji, as you added the tag initially do you agree that it is still necessary and if not what still needs to be changed? HelenOnline 07:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the article is much improved since the advert tag was added, so I wouldn't revert a removal of the tag given the current condition of the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)