Ask HN: Where can I genetically test myself without risking privacy? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: Where can I genetically test myself without risking privacy?

#21

Post by technocrat8080 » Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 10:08 PM UTC

bruce511 wrote: post #19

technocrat8080 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only care about testing for genetic health issues. I don't want my DNA to be inserted in a database that can be cross-referenced to check for relatives, ancestry, etc.

This is perhaps an off topic question, but I mean it seriously. What do you hope to gain from knowing your potential genetic health issues? If the report showed you had a chance of developing say Parkinsons, how would that change your life now? Could you implement those changes regardless? I mean, pretty much all genetic markers are just "risk". And lifestyle choices (smoking, drinking, sugar, exercise et al) seem to…

Thanks for spurring the thought. The main reason I'd like to find out is to avoid bringing a child into the world that might suffer from incurable disease.

Largely agree with your point on preventative actions being the same with or without testing, but there is a tail end that might warrant specialized action.

Re: Ask HN: Where can I genetically test myself without risking privacy?

#22

Post by technocrat8080 » Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 10:17 PM UTC

nokya wrote: post #20

technocrat8080 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only care about testing for genetic health issues. I don't want my DNA to be inserted in a database that can be cross-referenced to check for relatives, ancestry, etc.

Okay. Let's assume your top priority is to test for genetic health issues, I will also assume that you either plan on reducing the risk of future complications or you are factoring this information into account when deciding to get children (otherwise, why would you want this information?). In the first case (reducing risk factors), chances that you will at least check positive for one thing are almost 1 (certain) an…

I mostly agree with your first point, but is there not a chance for more serious disease to be detected? In which case specialized preventative care is the best path forward? There is definitely something to be said about staying ignorant of these, however.

> The only people who should not have kids are bad parents and people who don't want kids.

I don't think people who are highly susceptible to birthing malformed children should have children either. Genetic testing helps figure out if you might be in that group.

Re: Ask HN: Where can I genetically test myself without risking privacy?

#23

Post by bruce511 » Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 3:50 AM UTC

technocrat8080 wrote: post #21

bruce511 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is perhaps an off topic question, but I mean it seriously. What do you hope to gain from knowing your potential genetic health issues? If the report showed you had a chance of developing say Parkinsons, how would that change your life now? Could you implement those changes regardless? I mean, pretty much all genetic markers are just "risk". And lifestyle choices (smoking, drinking, sugar, exercise et al) seem to…

Thanks for spurring the thought. The main reason I'd like to find out is to avoid bringing a child into the world that might suffer from incurable disease. Largely agree with your point on preventative actions being the same with or without testing, but there is a tail end that might warrant specialized action.

Sure, I get that things like Huntingtons would certainly be worth knowing about. But for genetics like that simply looking at your own previous generations would give you the answer there. (And of course, that assumes you have access to that, which clearly not everyone does.)

Having children is obviously a big responsibility, and every parent wants only the best for them. Doing genetic testing can at least feel like you've done your due diligence.

I would point out though that genetic diseases are a tiny tiny fraction of the things that can go wrong. The overwhelming majority of children turn out fine. But some don't. That's life I'm afraid. Genetic testing isn't a guarantee they'll be OK. I'd go so far as to suggest it's basically meaningless in that context (especially if you have access to parents, grandparents etc.)

However you progress, I wish you well.

Re: Ask HN: Where can I genetically test myself without risking privacy?

#24

Post by technocrat8080 » Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 5:52 AM UTC

bruce511 wrote: post #23

technocrat8080 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for spurring the thought. The main reason I'd like to find out is to avoid bringing a child into the world that might suffer from incurable disease. Largely agree with your point on preventative actions being the same with or without testing, but there is a tail end that might warrant specialized action.

Sure, I get that things like Huntingtons would certainly be worth knowing about. But for genetics like that simply looking at your own previous generations would give you the answer there. (And of course, that assumes you have access to that, which clearly not everyone does.) Having children is obviously a big responsibility, and every parent wants only the best for them. Doing genetic testing can at least feel like…

I sense the undertone here is that there's a cost to genetic testing – did I get that right? Could you expand on that philosophy?

Re: Ask HN: Where can I genetically test myself without risking privacy?

#25

Post by bruce511 » Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 7:59 AM UTC

technocrat8080 wrote: post #24

bruce511 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I get that things like Huntingtons would certainly be worth knowing about. But for genetics like that simply looking at your own previous generations would give you the answer there. (And of course, that assumes you have access to that, which clearly not everyone does.) Having children is obviously a big responsibility, and every parent wants only the best for them. Doing genetic testing can at least feel like…

I sense the undertone here is that there's a cost to genetic testing – did I get that right? Could you expand on that philosophy?

I'm not sure which one of us you're referring to, but the primary "cost" as I see it is disclosing your DNA to some 3rd party, who are then free to use that DNA, or sell it, or whatever as they like.

So, in a sense, if you use a DNA service you are essentially putting your unique DNA marker "into the world", and it can be identified to you (especially if any of our relations have also been tested.)

While there may not be any immediate implications, that DNA might be used by law enforcement, insurance companies, employers etc (either now or in the future.) So there are potentially "high costs" - we just don't know what they are yet. But this bell cannot be unrung.

Balancing this possible harm are the possible benefits. Personally, I don't really see any compelling benefits, but my goal with this reply to the original question was to determine if I was missing something.

Re: Ask HN: Where can I genetically test myself without risking privacy?

#26

Post by nokya » Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 10:55 PM UTC

technocrat8080 wrote: post #22

nokya wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay. Let's assume your top priority is to test for genetic health issues, I will also assume that you either plan on reducing the risk of future complications or you are factoring this information into account when deciding to get children (otherwise, why would you want this information?). In the first case (reducing risk factors), chances that you will at least check positive for one thing are almost 1 (certain) an…

I mostly agree with your first point, but is there not a chance for more serious disease to be detected? In which case specialized preventative care is the best path forward? There is definitely something to be said about staying ignorant of these, however. > The only people who should not have kids are bad parents and people who don't want kids. I don't think people who are highly susceptible to birthing malformed c…

Yes, I can agree with you, did not think of that and it seems to be a perfectly valid motive.

Still, I wonder: who would fall in the "highly susceptible" category? Wouldn't these people need to be tested prior to actually knowing they should be tested? (what would push someone to be tested for susceptibility of birthing malformed children before being tested?)