I just think that I'll end up in a database that, despite any promise to the contrary now, will probably end up being used against me at some point in the future (targeted marking / denying of health insurance / whatever else). Which I really don't love.
And I hate to be cynical, but it strikes me that becoming the Google of genomes is ultimately going to make far, far more cash than selling a kit that tests for genetic problems.
Don't be evil, and all that.
Does anyone still believe that? I remember when they still had separation between GMail and Searches / Analytics.
In terms of doing DNA testing behind someone's back, paternity testing is DNA testing, and only requires a sample of the DNA. You can buy those kits at walmart already. Search for Identigene DNA Paternity Test Kit.
Me neither. Easy solution (at least for now): don't use it.
All the health insurance I've ever had has had cover for pre-existing conditions, required no medical details or medical examination. As far as I can tell, insurance companies have surprisingly little interest in my health, past my age and sex.
I can't see that changing so far that they pay third parties for a genetic screen in the near future.
"We don’t cover treatment of pre-existing conditions or related conditions if you had symptoms of, medication for, treatment for or advice about that condition in the five years before your joining date."
It wouldn't take much for companies to start requiring that you disclose the knowledge you're at (high?) risk of something and adjusting their prices accordingly - particularly in long term policies.
Edit: I probably should have said life insurance. Health insurance isn't (entirely) necessary in the UK thanks to the NHS. But imagine the premiums on a life insurance policy if they knew you had a high certainty of something difficult or incurable?
That's what insurance is though, right? You pay a premium over time relative to their payout risk. If you have heightened risk of serious disease you're not entitled to the same premium as someone with considerably lower risk.
Regardless, other than a couple of exceptions the genetics of complex diseases wouldn't be of much interest to health insurers. A SNP with a tiny effect size associated with type 2 diabetes gives less risk information than taking a look at a person's waistline.
Offering 100 policies at £100 makes sense if you can make a decent estimate of the average annual payout being £90. The fact that one guy walks in to the policy knowing he'll cost £500 doesn't concern you.
Offering 1 policy at £100 without any exclusions means that you get adverse selection - a unusually high proportion of your clients would walk in knowing that they'll cost the £500.
In many countries where health insurance is obligatory, regulators have risk pooling between insurers to help negate selection effects (I think this was included in ObamaCare provision but not sure)
Until you file a big claim.