Download JKWDissertation8.5.10amended

1138 Pages·2010·9.31 MB·English

by  Jen Wagner

The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
College of the Liberal Arts

SOCIAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF DNA ANCESTRY TESTS

A Dissertation in
Anthropology
by
Jennifer Kristin Wagner

© 2010 Jennifer Kristin Wagner

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

December 2010
The dissertation of Jennifer K. Wagner was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Kenneth M. Weiss
Evan Pugh Professor of Anthropology and Genetics and Science, Technology & Society
Dissertation Advisor
Chair of Committee

Mark D. Shriver
Associate Professor of Anthropology

Nina G. Jablonski
Professor of Anthropology
Head of Anthropology

Chloe B. Silverman
Assistant Professor of Science, Technology & Society and Women Studies

Jonathan Marks
Associate Professor of Bioethics, Humanities and Law

* Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.

ii
ABSTRACT
DNA ancestry tests, which include genetic ancestry tests and genomic ancestry
tests, may have significant and substantial implications. Existing discussions of these
implications are framed as “ELSI” (i.e. ethical, legal, and social implications) research
according to the National Human Genome Research Institute’s lead. The commentary
widely accepted as leading authority on ELSI of DNA ancestry tests – “The Science and
Business of Genetic Ancestry Testing”1 – offers many claims as to the impacts of this
genetic technology. Yet the authors provided no factual basis to support their claims and
systematic investigations of the merits of those claims have been absent. This research
project aims to address the claims made in this seminal commentary about social and
legal implications. First, I provide an introduction to these ELSI discussions; an
introduction to the DNA ancestry testing industry by explaining the types of DNA
ancestry tests available, their scientific capabilities and limitations, and the commercial
diversity of marketing and products; an overview of the current criticisms of the DNA
ancestry tests; and a call for an anthropological approach to ELSI research. Subsequently,
I focus on the social implications of DNA ancestry tests and use blog analysis,
generalized surveys, and focused surveys to search for evidence of the social implications
frequently reported. Next, I address the legal implications raised by ELSI authorities but
never before investigated systematically. I provide background information on relevant
legal theories and discuss a conceptual method that may assist non-legal professionals
studying legal implications of genetic technologies. This eco/devo/evo conceptual
method is then applied to explore specifically claims by Bolnick and colleagues that (1)
direct-to-consumer genetic testing is the unauthorized practice of medicine; (2) DNA
ancestry testing as used by law enforcement officers is an unconstitutional “DNA
dragnet;” and (3) individuals are purchasing DNA ancestry tests to seek legal
entitlements reserved for Native Americans. Additionally, attention is given to the
popular issue of genetic privacy. Finally, some preliminary conclusions about the

1 Bolnick, D. A., D. Fullwiley, T. Duster, R. S. Cooper, J. H. Fujimura, J. Kahn, J. S. Kaufman, J. Marks,
A. Morning, A. Nelson, P. Ossorio, J. Reardon, S. M. Reverby, and K. TallBear. 2007. Genetics. The
science and business of genetic ancestry testing. Science 318 (5849):399-400
iii
implications of DNA ancestry tests are drawn and recommendations are provided for
future research.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Introduction to the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of DNA
Ancestry Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 DNA Ancestry tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3 Current Criticisms of DNA Ancestry Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1.4 Need for an Anthropological Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Chapter 2. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF DNA ANCESTRY TESTS . . . . . . . . . 41
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.2 Assessing Attitudes on DNA Ancestry Tests via Survey Responses . . . 45
2.3 Assessing Attitudes on DNA Ancestry Tests via Blog Traffic . . . . . . . 74
2.4 Assessing Attitudes on DNA Ancestry Tests via Facebook Activity . . . 88
2.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Chapter 3. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF DNA ANCESTRY TESTS . . . . . . . . . . 106
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
3.2 Interpreting the Implications of DNA Ancestry Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
3.3 Just the Facts Ma’am: Removing the Drama from DNA Dragnets . . . . 156
3.4 DNA Ancestry Tests and the Fourth Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
3.5 DNA Ancestry Tests and Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
3.6 DNA Ancestry Tests and Native American Identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
3.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

Chapter 4. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
4.1 Implications of DNA Ancestry Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
4.2 Recommendations for Future ELSI Research of DNA Ancestry Tests. . 291

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304

Appendix A: Survey Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
Appendix B: Survey Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
Appendix C: Blog Intake Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 746
Appendix D: Facebook Group Intake Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749
Appendix E: Facebook Survey Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 752
Appendix F: Facebook Survey Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 775
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 – DNA Ancestry Companies and Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 1.2 – Popular Media Coverage of DNA Ancestry Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 1.3 – Definitions of Key Genetic Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 2.1 – Demographic Summary of Penn State Survey Respondents . . . . . . . 48
Table 2.2 – Demographic Summary of Morehouse Survey Respondents . . . . . . . 62
Table 2.3 – Blog Coverage of Common Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Table 2.4 – Blog Coverage of Attitudes on DNA Ancestry Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Table 2.5 – Recruited Facebook Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Table 2.6 – Demographic Summary of Facebook Survey Respondents . . . . . . . . 91
Table 3.1 – Definitions of Key Legal Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Table 3.2 – Blood Quantum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 – Sample Genetic Ancestry Report, Family Tree DNA . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 1.2 – Maternal Genetic Ancestry, 23andMe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 1.3 – Maternal Genetic Ancestry, deCODEme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 1.4 – Sample Genomic Ancestry Report, AncestrybyDNA . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 1.5 – 23andMe Ancestry Painting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 1.6 – deCODEme Ancestral Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 1.7 – 23andMe Global Similarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Figure 1.8 – deCODEme Genetic World Atlas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Figure 2.1 – PSU Familiarity with DNA Ancestry Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 2.2 – PSU Taken DNA Ancestry Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 2.3 – PSU Relative Accuracy of DNA Ancestry Information . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 2.4 – PSU Weight of DNA Ancestry Information by Judge . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 2.5 – PSU Weight of DNA Ancestry Information by Jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 2.6 – PSU Can DNA Ancestry Tests Tell Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Figure 2.7 – PSU Can DNA Ancestry Tests Prove Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Figure 2.8 – PSU Are DNA Ancestry Tests Valid and Reliable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 2.9 – PSU Compel DNA Samples from Eyewitness Accounts . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 2.10 – PSU Ask for DNA Samples from Molecular Photofitting . . . . . . . 57
Figure 2.11 – PSU Compel DNA Samples from Molecular Photofitting . . . . . . . 58
Figure 2.12 – PSU Comparability of Eyewitness Account and Molecular Photofitting 59
Figure 2.13 – Morehouse Familiarity with DNA Ancestry Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Figure 2.14 – Morehouse Taken DNA Ancestry Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
vii
Figure 2.15 – Morehouse Can DNA Ancestry Tests Tell Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Figure 2.16 – Morehouse Can DNA Ancestry Tests Prove Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Figure 2.17 – Morehouse Are DNA Ancestry Tests Valid and Reliable . . . . . . . . . 65
Figure 2.18 – Morehouse Compel DNA Samples from Eyewitness Accounts . . . . 66
Figure 2.19 – Morehouse Ask for DNA Samples from Molecular Photofitting . . . 67
Figure 2.20 – Morehouse Compel DNA Samples from Molecular Photofitting . . . 68
Figure 2.21 – Morehouse Comparability of Eyewitness and Molecular Photofitting 69
Figure 2.22 – Blog Traffic on DNA Ancestry and Similar Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Figure 2.23 – Science and Blawg Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Figure 2.24 – Types of DNA Ancestry Tests Mentioned in Blogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Figure 2.25 – Blogs Neither Encourage Nor Discourage DNA Ancestry Testing . . 83
Figure 2.26 – Facebook Companies Tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Figure 2.27 – Facebook DNA Ancestry Test Result Reactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Figure 2.28 – Facebook Post-DNA Ancestry Test Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Figure 2.29 – Facebook DNA Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Figure 2.30 – Facebook Publicity of DNA Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Figure 2.31 – Facebook mtDNA Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Figure 2.32 – Facebook Y-DNA Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Figure 2.33 – Facebook Relative Accuracy of DNA Ancestry Information. . . . . . . 99
Figure 2.34 – Facebook Weight of DNA Ancestry Information by Judge . . . . . . . 100
Figure 2.35 – Facebook Weight of DNA Ancestry Information by Jury. . . . . . . . . 100
Figure 2.36 – Facebook DNA Ancestry Tests Valid and Reliable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Figure 3.1 – Research Foci of Biological and Legal Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
viii
Figure 3.2 – Privacy Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Figure 3.3 – Privacy Court Opinions in PA, Third Circuit, and SCOTUS . . . . . . . . 241
ix
PREFACE
It was July 1999. I had just finished my freshman year studying anthropology at
Penn State University and returned from an archaeological field school when I
approached Dr. Mark Shriver about my interest in working in his anthropological
genetics laboratory. I recall the excitement I felt as I sat in that unforgettable orange chair
as I listened to Mark explain his research on normal variation of common traits. I knew
right away that working in Mark’s lab was an amazing opportunity. For the next three
years I was engaged in all aspects of the research: obtaining the informed consent and
collecting anthropometric data from research participants; running PCRs and genotyping
with gels and mcSNP; preparing grant proposals and presentations; attending
conferences; and writing journal articles. These hands-on research experiences only
supplemented my formal training in biological anthropology by other brilliant scholars
(e.g. my first introductory course in biological anthropology was team-taught by leaders
of each sub-discipline – genetics by Dr. Kenneth Weiss, paleontology by Dr. Alan
Walker, and primatology by Dr. Jeffrey Kurland). The entire experience was truly life-
changing for me, a small town girl from central Pennsylvania.
In 2002 I began a graduate program in human genetics under the supervision of
Dr. Jeffrey Long at the University of Michigan. While I was there, however, the
university’s policies for undergraduate and law school admissions were facing
constitutional challenges before the Supreme Court of the United States. I always was
passionately outspoken against racial discrimination. The media attention and debates
that surrounded these two court cases, Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, lit a
fire under me. I left my doctoral program in human genetics at the University of
x