23andMe Gene sequencing?

[nawhite]

Looks like no one has mentioned this already...


Even though 23andme isn't allowed to give health interpretations, other companies can take the raw data 23 provides and interpret it for you.
Specifically Promethease
They charge $5


It was this thread that inspired me to get my DNA sequenced, and I just got the results today, hence my posting in a year old thread.

Bakari--Thank you. I was sad to learn the FDA felt threatened by people knowing their medical info. I was looking for a company like the one you mention to get the health info. I appreciate your post.

That is a grossly incorrect and cynical way to look at why the FDA did what they did. It also falsely allows people to portray Promethease as a better or more accurate source of information which is also false.

What you say may be true. At the same time, when you open with telling me I am "grossly incorrect" and "cynical," then I am not going to hear your message. I have been accused of "falsely" allowing people to portray Promethease as more accurate. What? I did not say that.

I've been attacked in the first sentence, and I have stopped listening to you. Have a good night. Hope you are able to find a better way to communicate with people.

You're right. I'm sorry I communicated poorly. (And, it really was Bakari's comment which gives undeserved legitimacy to Promethease, not yours). I was over-reacting to your comment "the FDA felt threatened by people knowing their medical info." I feel that comment is inaccurate and misleading because it doesn't agree with some medically relevant reasons that the FDA prohibited 23andMe from continuing to market their product to new customers.

Condensing the truth of the FDA's actions down to that they "felt threatened" could give people the impression that 23andMe has an accurate test and the FDA just wanted to step on the little guy. That is not at all the case, or more precisely, 23andMe has had many opportunities to prove that they have an accurate test and they have turned down all of those opportunities because of costs, paperwork, etc. and the FDA (who's responsibility it is to prevent companies from selling snake oil marketed as something else) told them to stop all further marketing until they perform the tests.

Until those tests are performed, NO ONE should get a 23andMe test for any reason other than amusement. Also, no other company (Promethease or other) can take a 23andMe test and turn it into medically relevant information because the data they use is based on a physical test which has unknown (or at least unpublished) accuracy. The reports Promethease generates should still be used just for amusement purposes as well.

Hopefully that presents my case in a better way that doesn't attack anyone in the discussion. Sorry about that.

[Bakari]

Looks like no one has mentioned this already...


Even though 23andme isn't allowed to give health interpretations, other companies can take the raw data 23 provides and interpret it for you.
Specifically Promethease
They charge $5


It was this thread that inspired me to get my DNA sequenced, and I just got the results today, hence my posting in a year old thread.

Bakari--Thank you. I was sad to learn the FDA felt threatened by people knowing their medical info. I was looking for a company like the one you mention to get the health info. I appreciate your post.

The FDA wanted to know 23andMe's false positive and false negative numbers. THATS IT! 23andMe uses a cheap test that has fairly high (relatively) rates of inaccurate results. The other tests (the $3500 ones) are most likely way more accurate but we don't know because 23andMe is afraid to publish their accuracy rates.

...

Promethease isn't any better in the FDA's eyes (or in mine) because they use the same physical tests. Both 23andMe and Promethease will say you have BCRA if their test gave you a false positive and that would be really bad for you! The FDA wants to protect people from things like getting voluntary mastectomies based on their 23andMe results only to later have an accredited test come back and say "oh yeah, you really don't have that variant. Too bad you got that preemptive mastectomy huh?"

That said, I love 23andMe, but if their results suggested something really bad, I'd pay for a real test and if my doctor recommended a real test, I wouldn't say "but 23andMe said I do/don't have that gene?!?!" I'd get the real test.

Promethease doesn't do ANY physical tests at all.  All they do is take the raw data provided by 23andMe or ancestry.com (or anyone else) and run it through a database to interpert the data.


The accuracy of 23andMe's test is obviously not the only issue, because the FDA did not make them stop providing tests or the data from it, they just made them stop giving interpretations of health related data.  You can still get all the same information from them (as the health info is there, just generic, and your raw data is there and searchable) but it is incredibly tedious to have to go through one by one.
In other words, if your interpretation of the situation was all there was to it, the changes the FDA insisted on hasn't fixed it.

The combination of DNA analysis and interpretation was what made them classify it as a "Medical Device", but as long as those two steps are done by separate companies -  even though the same exact tests, with the same error rates are still being used - the FDA is fine with it.

Anyone who understands how genes work knows that having a particular gene (except for a very small set of conditions) only raises your probability of getting a disease, it doesn't make it inevitable.  Hopefully that includes most doctors.  Unless people start doing home masectomies or other DIY surgery, people have a chance to get reality checked on their results before they make a major decision like that.

[Bakari]

Looks like no one has mentioned this already...


Even though 23andme isn't allowed to give health interpretations, other companies can take the raw data 23 provides and interpret it for you.
Specifically Promethease
They charge $5


It was this thread that inspired me to get my DNA sequenced, and I just got the results today, hence my posting in a year old thread.

Bakari--does Promethease do more analysis than what 23 and me originally provided? I got the full results from them before the FDA thing, but I am interested in more analysis. I was just wondering if you knew; looking at their reports it looks like it might all be the same stuff.

Not sure, I never got 23's version to compare with.
I believe they use a wiki, while 23 did all of their own, so... probably?  Also, time has passed, and new research comes out constantly.

[oldtoyota]

Looks like no one has mentioned this already...


Even though 23andme isn't allowed to give health interpretations, other companies can take the raw data 23 provides and interpret it for you.
Specifically Promethease
They charge $5


It was this thread that inspired me to get my DNA sequenced, and I just got the results today, hence my posting in a year old thread.

Bakari--Thank you. I was sad to learn the FDA felt threatened by people knowing their medical info. I was looking for a company like the one you mention to get the health info. I appreciate your post.

That is a grossly incorrect and cynical way to look at why the FDA did what they did. It also falsely allows people to portray Promethease as a better or more accurate source of information which is also false.

What you say may be true. At the same time, when you open with telling me I am "grossly incorrect" and "cynical," then I am not going to hear your message. I have been accused of "falsely" allowing people to portray Promethease as more accurate. What? I did not say that.

I've been attacked in the first sentence, and I have stopped listening to you. Have a good night. Hope you are able to find a better way to communicate with people.

You're right. I'm sorry I communicated poorly. (And, it really was Bakari's comment which gives undeserved legitimacy to Promethease, not yours). I was over-reacting to your comment "the FDA felt threatened by people knowing their medical info." I feel that comment is inaccurate and misleading because it doesn't agree with some medically relevant reasons that the FDA prohibited 23andMe from continuing to market their product to new customers.

Condensing the truth of the FDA's actions down to that they "felt threatened" could give people the impression that 23andMe has an accurate test and the FDA just wanted to step on the little guy. That is not at all the case, or more precisely, 23andMe has had many opportunities to prove that they have an accurate test and they have turned down all of those opportunities because of costs, paperwork, etc. and the FDA (who's responsibility it is to prevent companies from selling snake oil marketed as something else) told them to stop all further marketing until they perform the tests.

Until those tests are performed, NO ONE should get a 23andMe test for any reason other than amusement. Also, no other company (Promethease or other) can take a 23andMe test and turn it into medically relevant information because the data they use is based on a physical test which has unknown (or at least unpublished) accuracy. The reports Promethease generates should still be used just for amusement purposes as well.

Hopefully that presents my case in a better way that doesn't attack anyone in the discussion. Sorry about that.

Thank you. I appreciate you saying the above.

My friend got the test and saw he had the gene for the cancer he'd already survived. As Bakari mentioned, I don't think we plan to do surgery on ourselves, yet it can give us some questions to ask a doctor or maybe get something checked out.

I have a beef with the FDA and it came out in ways that are not fair to this discussion. They have former Monsanto people working for them, and it makes me very suspicious of their goals. I've also seen other things they forbid that don't really hurt people. They are forbidding some things due to bureaucracy and people suffer for that.

Correct me if I am wrong...I don't see how a test like this could hurt someone since we're not going to treat ourselves for cancer, etc. It could make us worry. The data could possibly be used against us by people who don't know better...Am I missing something else?

[grantmeaname]

The immense cost to the nation of CYA healthcare being exacerbated by doctors who just can't talk a patient out of what 23andme has completely set their mind on?

[matchewed]

It can give people a false sense of expertise. They can read "you have an increased percentage chance of X" and see "you will get X." There needs to be context and education behind looking at things like 23andMe. I did it myself. But have made it a point throughout my life to understand some statistics which gives me just a sliver of understanding of what it tells me. Even being educated doesn't make people immune to seeing what they want to see. Often times, especially in matters of health, one should rely on experts who have much more education and experience in the matter.

Again I'm not against 23andMe and have used their product; but just like any tool understanding the limitations is important. This is a new tool. I'm not sure we even know all the limitations or risks yet. I'm okay with the FDA pumping the breaks for now. It won't last long given the speed and progress that genetic testing is going through.

[oldtoyota]

It can give people a false sense of expertise. They can read "you have an increased percentage chance of X" and see "you will get X." There needs to be context and education behind looking at things like 23andMe. I did it myself. But have made it a point throughout my life to understand some statistics which gives me just a sliver of understanding of what it tells me. Even being educated doesn't make people immune to seeing what they want to see. Often times, especially in matters of health, one should rely on experts who have much more education and experience in the matter.

Experts are generally good. However, I've seen doctors make so many mistakes that I now take a more active role in my healthcare than I did years ago. Always question. Always research and ask multiple doctors.

In short, three doctors = four opinions.

[matchewed]

It can give people a false sense of expertise. They can read "you have an increased percentage chance of X" and see "you will get X." There needs to be context and education behind looking at things like 23andMe. I did it myself. But have made it a point throughout my life to understand some statistics which gives me just a sliver of understanding of what it tells me. Even being educated doesn't make people immune to seeing what they want to see. Often times, especially in matters of health, one should rely on experts who have much more education and experience in the matter.

Experts are generally good. However, I've seen doctors make so many mistakes that I now take a more active role in my healthcare than I did years ago. Always question. Always research and ask multiple doctors.

In short, three doctors = four opinions.

Note I'm not asking for blind faith but educated faith. I can't disagree with taking an active role in healthcare and questioning the information you receive, no where did I suggest that, and feel my comment above completely agrees with that with one caveat. I can see how people will insist that something is the problem with little to no real knowledge of the issue. Sometimes a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Or the medical version of modern jackass. Especially if people can't shake that they may be wrong and nobody likes being wrong (raises hand). Which I'm generally fine with when we're talking innocent things. I have conflicted feelings when it comes to things which may harm others (more concern) or themselves (much less concern).

[workathomedad]

Promethease recently let me know I was a genetic carrier for Alpha-1 antitrypsin. Blood tests confirmed that I actually have the genetic disorder. That kind of rare information is certainly helpful. It's one of those things that people would almost never be tested for until it's "too late" and they already are suffering with the consequences like COPD.

I mean, it sucks no matter how you cut it, but at least I know and can be extra careful about smoking, etc.

[Nords]

It can give people a false sense of expertise. They can read "you have an increased percentage chance of X" and see "you will get X." There needs to be context and education behind looking at things like 23andMe. I did it myself. But have made it a point throughout my life to understand some statistics which gives me just a sliver of understanding of what it tells me. Even being educated doesn't make people immune to seeing what they want to see. Often times, especially in matters of health, one should rely on experts who have much more education and experience in the matter.

Again I'm not against 23andMe and have used their product; but just like any tool understanding the limitations is important. This is a new tool. I'm not sure we even know all the limitations or risks yet. I'm okay with the FDA pumping the breaks for now. It won't last long given the speed and progress that genetic testing is going through.

There are things on my genome that I never would have known about (let alone cared about) without genetic testing.  I'm very happy to be an informed consumer, although of course I wish I could have edited the press release.

In my case it's not "You will get X".  For example, it reassured our daughter that she didn't inherit the Nords family tendency toward breast cancer, but she is carrying the cystic fibrosis gene.  Good thing to know if you plan to someday procreate grandchildren.  All three of us (me, my spouse, our daughter) have drug sensitivities that we never knew about-- and that explains why so many oncologists design their treatments around genetic profiles.

In my case it's also "Hey, you should get rid of all of these risk factor behaviors for X because that genetic gun is already loaded with a full clip."  I'm going to live my life as if I have no margin for error ("... and this time I really mean it!"), which is probably a good thing to do whether you know your genetic profile or not.

[matchewed]

It can give people a false sense of expertise. They can read "you have an increased percentage chance of X" and see "you will get X." There needs to be context and education behind looking at things like 23andMe. I did it myself. But have made it a point throughout my life to understand some statistics which gives me just a sliver of understanding of what it tells me. Even being educated doesn't make people immune to seeing what they want to see. Often times, especially in matters of health, one should rely on experts who have much more education and experience in the matter.

Again I'm not against 23andMe and have used their product; but just like any tool understanding the limitations is important. This is a new tool. I'm not sure we even know all the limitations or risks yet. I'm okay with the FDA pumping the breaks for now. It won't last long given the speed and progress that genetic testing is going through.

There are things on my genome that I never would have known about (let alone cared about) without genetic testing.  I'm very happy to be an informed consumer, although of course I wish I could have edited the press release.

In my case it's not "You will get X".  For example, it reassured our daughter that she didn't inherit the Nords family tendency toward breast cancer, but she is carrying the cystic fibrosis gene.  Good thing to know if you plan to someday procreate grandchildren.  All three of us (me, my spouse, our daughter) have drug sensitivities that we never knew about-- and that explains why so many oncologists design their treatments around genetic profiles.

In my case it's also "Hey, you should get rid of all of these risk factor behaviors for X because that genetic gun is already loaded with a full clip."  I'm going to live my life as if I have no margin for error ("... and this time I really mean it!"), which is probably a good thing to do whether you know your genetic profile or not.

Totally agree and haven't disagreed once with that approach. :)

[oldtoyota]

It can give people a false sense of expertise. They can read "you have an increased percentage chance of X" and see "you will get X." There needs to be context and education behind looking at things like 23andMe. I did it myself. But have made it a point throughout my life to understand some statistics which gives me just a sliver of understanding of what it tells me. Even being educated doesn't make people immune to seeing what they want to see. Often times, especially in matters of health, one should rely on experts who have much more education and experience in the matter.

Experts are generally good. However, I've seen doctors make so many mistakes that I now take a more active role in my healthcare than I did years ago. Always question. Always research and ask multiple doctors.

In short, three doctors = four opinions.

Note I'm not asking for blind faith but educated faith. I can't disagree with taking an active role in healthcare and questioning the information you receive, no where did I suggest that, and feel my comment above completely agrees with that with one caveat. I can see how people will insist that something is the problem with little to no real knowledge of the issue. Sometimes a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Or the medical version of modern jackass. Especially if people can't shake that they may be wrong and nobody likes being wrong (raises hand). Which I'm generally fine with when we're talking innocent things. I have conflicted feelings when it comes to things which may harm others (more concern) or themselves (much less concern).

I was not saying you said or didn't say anything about questioning. I can see how my post may have suggested that by bringing it up above though. Sorry about that.

It seems to me like we're mostly agreeing. We may disagree one one small point. It sounds to me (correct me if I am wrong) that you have a concern some folks will misread or get overly concerned about what the test says. I think people need to go into it knowing it's not the end all be all. Nords has good points. He and his family are using the data points to have information about having children in the future or about how to live life now. What he is doing is more along the lines of how I would use it.

The FDA seems to have no issue approving GMO foods despite concerns in other countries and amongst some Americans, yet there's a delay with people being able to get their genetic info because the data might not be good enough. ??

[matchewed]

It can give people a false sense of expertise. They can read "you have an increased percentage chance of X" and see "you will get X." There needs to be context and education behind looking at things like 23andMe. I did it myself. But have made it a point throughout my life to understand some statistics which gives me just a sliver of understanding of what it tells me. Even being educated doesn't make people immune to seeing what they want to see. Often times, especially in matters of health, one should rely on experts who have much more education and experience in the matter.

Experts are generally good. However, I've seen doctors make so many mistakes that I now take a more active role in my healthcare than I did years ago. Always question. Always research and ask multiple doctors.

In short, three doctors = four opinions.

Note I'm not asking for blind faith but educated faith. I can't disagree with taking an active role in healthcare and questioning the information you receive, no where did I suggest that, and feel my comment above completely agrees with that with one caveat. I can see how people will insist that something is the problem with little to no real knowledge of the issue. Sometimes a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Or the medical version of modern jackass. Especially if people can't shake that they may be wrong and nobody likes being wrong (raises hand). Which I'm generally fine with when we're talking innocent things. I have conflicted feelings when it comes to things which may harm others (more concern) or themselves (much less concern).

I was not saying you said or didn't say anything about questioning. I can see how my post may have suggested that by bringing it up above though. Sorry about that.

It seems to me like we're mostly agreeing. We may disagree one one small point. It sounds to me (correct me if I am wrong) that you have a concern some folks will misread or get overly concerned about what the test says. I think people need to go into it knowing it's not the end all be all. Nords has good points. He and his family are using the data points to have information about having children in the future or about how to live life now. What he is doing is more along the lines of how I would use it.

The FDA seems to have no issue approving GMO foods despite concerns in other countries and amongst some Americans, yet there's a delay with people being able to get their genetic info because the data might not be good enough. ??

Well the FDA is only putting the kibash on the medical result side of 23andMe because they want to determine accuracy (at least at face value that is what they're doing). If the government doesn't start letting companies do this sort of medical result to the general public then people will start looking outside of the US. I agree that the regulation is heavy handed. But to compare it to GMO is a bit silly. If 23andMe had been around since 1976 then I'm sure they'd be past this hurdle much like GMO's are already past that hurdle of government scrutiny. It is not as if commercial GMO's are a new thing but personal gene sequencing is, relative to that, a newborn.

[oldtoyota]

It can give people a false sense of expertise. They can read "you have an increased percentage chance of X" and see "you will get X." There needs to be context and education behind looking at things like 23andMe. I did it myself. But have made it a point throughout my life to understand some statistics which gives me just a sliver of understanding of what it tells me. Even being educated doesn't make people immune to seeing what they want to see. Often times, especially in matters of health, one should rely on experts who have much more education and experience in the matter.

Experts are generally good. However, I've seen doctors make so many mistakes that I now take a more active role in my healthcare than I did years ago. Always question. Always research and ask multiple doctors.

In short, three doctors = four opinions.

Note I'm not asking for blind faith but educated faith. I can't disagree with taking an active role in healthcare and questioning the information you receive, no where did I suggest that, and feel my comment above completely agrees with that with one caveat. I can see how people will insist that something is the problem with little to no real knowledge of the issue. Sometimes a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Or the medical version of modern jackass. Especially if people can't shake that they may be wrong and nobody likes being wrong (raises hand). Which I'm generally fine with when we're talking innocent things. I have conflicted feelings when it comes to things which may harm others (more concern) or themselves (much less concern).

I was not saying you said or didn't say anything about questioning. I can see how my post may have suggested that by bringing it up above though. Sorry about that.

It seems to me like we're mostly agreeing. We may disagree one one small point. It sounds to me (correct me if I am wrong) that you have a concern some folks will misread or get overly concerned about what the test says. I think people need to go into it knowing it's not the end all be all. Nords has good points. He and his family are using the data points to have information about having children in the future or about how to live life now. What he is doing is more along the lines of how I would use it.

The FDA seems to have no issue approving GMO foods despite concerns in other countries and amongst some Americans, yet there's a delay with people being able to get their genetic info because the data might not be good enough. ??

Well the FDA is only putting the kibash on the medical result side of 23andMe because they want to determine accuracy (at least at face value that is what they're doing). If the government doesn't start letting companies do this sort of medical result to the general public then people will start looking outside of the US. I agree that the regulation is heavy handed. But to compare it to GMO is a bit silly. If 23andMe had been around since 1976 then I'm sure they'd be past this hurdle much like GMO's are already past that hurdle of government scrutiny. It is not as if commercial GMO's are a new thing but personal gene sequencing is, relative to that, a newborn.

We can agree to disagree then. GMOs affect everyone. GMO seeds can blow over into an organic field and render it no longer organic according to current laws. If I get my DNA info, that only affects me. I can be as stupid as I want with the info, and the chances it'll hurt you at all are pretty slim.

Just because GMOs have been around since the 70s doesn't mean they are safe. It's a fallacy to suggest that.

[nawhite]

Just because GMOs have been around since the 70s doesn't mean they are safe. It's a fallacy to suggest that.

I always thought the fallacy was to suggest that GMO's were dangerous when their DNA works the same as any other organism. Less sarcasm: What really is so scary about GMO plants or animals? I love the fact that scientists have bred (or designed) farm crops which feed more people and keep more insecticides out of the water supply. What exactly am I supposed to be scared of in my GMO corn?

[matchewed]

It can give people a false sense of expertise. They can read "you have an increased percentage chance of X" and see "you will get X." There needs to be context and education behind looking at things like 23andMe. I did it myself. But have made it a point throughout my life to understand some statistics which gives me just a sliver of understanding of what it tells me. Even being educated doesn't make people immune to seeing what they want to see. Often times, especially in matters of health, one should rely on experts who have much more education and experience in the matter.

Experts are generally good. However, I've seen doctors make so many mistakes that I now take a more active role in my healthcare than I did years ago. Always question. Always research and ask multiple doctors.

In short, three doctors = four opinions.

Note I'm not asking for blind faith but educated faith. I can't disagree with taking an active role in healthcare and questioning the information you receive, no where did I suggest that, and feel my comment above completely agrees with that with one caveat. I can see how people will insist that something is the problem with little to no real knowledge of the issue. Sometimes a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Or the medical version of modern jackass. Especially if people can't shake that they may be wrong and nobody likes being wrong (raises hand). Which I'm generally fine with when we're talking innocent things. I have conflicted feelings when it comes to things which may harm others (more concern) or themselves (much less concern).

I was not saying you said or didn't say anything about questioning. I can see how my post may have suggested that by bringing it up above though. Sorry about that.

It seems to me like we're mostly agreeing. We may disagree one one small point. It sounds to me (correct me if I am wrong) that you have a concern some folks will misread or get overly concerned about what the test says. I think people need to go into it knowing it's not the end all be all. Nords has good points. He and his family are using the data points to have information about having children in the future or about how to live life now. What he is doing is more along the lines of how I would use it.

The FDA seems to have no issue approving GMO foods despite concerns in other countries and amongst some Americans, yet there's a delay with people being able to get their genetic info because the data might not be good enough. ??

Well the FDA is only putting the kibash on the medical result side of 23andMe because they want to determine accuracy (at least at face value that is what they're doing). If the government doesn't start letting companies do this sort of medical result to the general public then people will start looking outside of the US. I agree that the regulation is heavy handed. But to compare it to GMO is a bit silly. If 23andMe had been around since 1976 then I'm sure they'd be past this hurdle much like GMO's are already past that hurdle of government scrutiny. It is not as if commercial GMO's are a new thing but personal gene sequencing is, relative to that, a newborn.

We can agree to disagree then. GMOs affect everyone. GMO seeds can blow over into an organic field and render it no longer organic according to current laws. If I get my DNA info, that only affects me. I can be as stupid as I want with the info, and the chances it'll hurt you at all are pretty slim.

Just because GMOs have been around since the 70s doesn't mean they are safe. It's a fallacy to suggest that.

I think you're missing my point. My point was not about whether it affected individuals and was a self choice, or it affecting others and becoming a larger issue. But rather that new technologies generally have some time frame where they undergo scrutiny through some medium that can do so. In this case the government is such an entity. The time was just a function of whether that scrutiny occurred or not.

Nothing I've said says they're safe or not.

And you can still get your genome sequenced, it is the efficacy of the ability to interpret that data into something meaningful, useful, and not harmful which is coming into question.

You may just want to agree to disagree, but I think you're just disagreeing with points I'm not making at this time. :)

[MrFrugalChicago]

I would never do this.

What if some day in the future my dna ended up on something (say I touched a knife in a store, or got blood on a tire iron ) that later used to kill someone. Then the police cross reference the DNA with 23-and-me, and match my DNA. Opps, I get to go to jail for life.

No thanks.

[matchewed]

I would never do this.

What if some day in the future my dna ended up on something (say I touched a knife in a store, or got blood on a tire iron ) that later used to kill someone. Then the police cross reference the DNA with 23-and-me, and match my DNA. Opps, I get to go to jail for life.

No thanks.

You should probably know a bit more about the legal process for trying to convict a murderer. Just your DNA is not enough to place you at the scene. If you had no motive and an alibi then you shouldn't be worried. Do you run around not wearing gloves because you're afraid to put your fingerprints on things?

[MrFrugalChicago]

You should probably know a bit more about the legal process for trying to convict a murderer. Just your DNA is not enough to place you at the scene. If you had no motive and an alibi then you shouldn't be worried. Do you run around not wearing gloves because you're afraid to put your fingerprints on things?

Like I said, you are free to make a choice in this matter. If you are OK with your DNA being in the wild linked to your name, cool.

The risk / reward is not worth it to me in the current legal climate.

[Nords]

I would never do this.

What if some day in the future my dna ended up on something (say I touched a knife in a store, or got blood on a tire iron ) that later used to kill someone. Then the police cross reference the DNA with 23-and-me, and match my DNA. Opps, I get to go to jail for life.

No thanks.

Whew, absolutely, that possibility makes the whole idea too dangerous to try.  Good thing you're not at risk from a genetically-based disease or syndrome, or carrying any gene-based medication allergies, or passing on any genetic flaws to your kids.

The other common fear is "Yeah, well, someone could leak my genome to the insurance companies, and then I'd never be able to buy long-term care insurance!!"

What's your response to this hypothetical situation?:  "Mr. Frugal, your cancer is only curable by one of these six chemotherapy drugs.  A couple of them are far more effective than the rest, and one of them will kill you with an allergic reaction.  Before we begin we'll need to sequence your genome to make sure we're using the right medication."

Or how about this one:  "Dad, am I genetically at a higher risk of breast cancer?"

Whether it's DNA or fingerprints or tire treads or some other forensic trail, circumstantial evidence is just that.