Taking a consumer DNA test (ancestry and health risks) vs. preserving genetic ignorance
If you act
Taking a consumer DNA test (23andMe, AncestryDNA, or similar)
11%
If you don't
Opting out of consumer DNA testing, preserving genetic ignorance
52%
Percentage who later regret each choice. Bars and full ledger render below.
Health
Last reviewed 2026-05-13
Evidence quality 3.13/5
Eight-dimension review score against the
quality rubric
. Each dimension scored 1–5.
D1 Source verification
2/5
D2 Source authority & independence
3/5
D3 Regret-rate accuracy
2/5
D4 Source comparability
2/5
D5 Gilovich pattern
4/5
D6 Prose quality
4/5
D7 Caveat completeness
5/5
D8 Sample quality
3/5
Average3.13/5
Proxy data — no direct regret survey exists for this decision. Rates are derived from satisfaction scores and access-barrier data rather than questions that directly asked about regret. See caveats below.
Action regret
Taking a consumer DNA test (23andMe, AncestryDNA, or similar)
11%
~11% of those who learned new information from a relative-finder DNA test reported decisional regret
DTC genetic relative-finder service participants who learned new information
cross-sectional survey, 2022
Inaction regret
Opting out of consumer DNA testing, preserving genetic ignorance
52%
~52% of US adults are interested in being genetically tested (a proxy for inaction regret, not a direct regret survey)
US adults (nationally representative; 17% already tested, 52% interested in testing)
cross-sectional, June 13-18 2018
% who regret this choice
Taking a consumer DNA test (23andMe, AncestryDNA, or similar)Opting out of consumer DNA testing, preserving genetic ignorance
11%52%
inaction dominates — Inaction dominates — most regret not acting.
Related decisions
Semantically similar decisions — same territory, different trade-offs.
Opening to consensual non-monogamyStaying strictly monogamous
15%21%
Inaction dominates
Inaction regret 1.4× higher
Among direct-to-consumer relative-finder participants who learned new information about themselves or their relatives, approximately 11% reported decisional regret, according to Guerrini et al. (2022) in the American Journal of Human Genetics (n=23,196; 61% learned something new, 11% of those scored above the Decision Regret Scale cutoff, and 2% reported net-negative consequences). Learning something new can mean discovery shock from unexpected paternity revelations (a “Not Parent Expected” result), identification of unknown biological relatives, or unanticipated high-penetrance disease risk variants such as BRCA1/2. This 11% applies to the subset who receive genuinely unexpected findings, not to all test takers — the majority of people who test report positive or neutral experiences (ancestry discovery, confirmation of family stories, actionable health information), and the donor-conceived subgroup reported the highest regret of all. The inaction side is harder to measure directly because no survey asks non-testers whether they regret opting out. The closest proxy comes from an AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll (June 2018, n=1,109): 17% of US adults had been genetically tested and another 52% said they were interested in having it done, primarily citing curiosity about ancestry and the desire to understand genetic health risks. Interest is a latent signal, not regret — many of those who are “interested” may never act, and interest can coexist with no felt regret about not having tested yet.
The decision’s structure is unusual because its consequences are irreversible in only one direction. A person who tests and discovers distressing information cannot un-know it; the cascade of downstream decisions triggered by unexpected results — preventive surgeries, family disclosures, identity reckonings — carries its own regret profile independent of the original test decision. A person who opts out retains the option to test later, meaning inaction here is not a permanent foregone opportunity but a deferral. This structural asymmetry likely suppresses inaction regret and amplifies action regret relative to other regret pairs.
The risk calculus shifted substantially after October 2023, when a credential-stuffing attack on 23andMe exposed the genetic ancestry data of approximately 6.9 million users, followed by 23andMe’s bankruptcy filing in March 2025 and the subsequent uncertainty about who would control and monetize stored genetic profiles. Users who tested between 2017 and 2023 made their decision under a different risk profile than the one that materialized. The pre-breach AP-NORC finding that 50% of US adults were already extremely or very concerned that for-profit DNA companies would share their genetic information proved prescient: a large share of non-testers appear to have anticipated a data-handling risk that materialized dramatically for millions who had already tested.
Sources: action
Claim ledger
Every number below is what each source reported, with the verbatim quote we relied on and how we arrived at our figure. Click any link to verify directly.
[1]American Journal of Human Genetics — Family secrets: Experiences and outcomes of participating in direct-to-consumer genetic relative-finder services
Peer-reviewed
Among the 61% of DTC relative-finder participants who learned new information about themselves or their relatives, 11% (n=1,542) reported decisional regret scores at or above the cutoff of 30, and 2% (n=352) reported net-negative consequences for themselves; those who learned they were donor conceived reported the highest regret
Excerpt
“"Separately, most respondents (61%) reported learning something new about themselves or their relatives, including potentially disruptive information such as that a person they believed to be their biological parent is in fact not or that they have a sibling they had not known about. ... Compared to respondents making other types of discoveries, those who learned that they were donor conceived reported the highest decisional regret and represented the largest proportion reporting net-negative consequences for themselves."
”
Source data from
2022-03-03
Accessed
2026-07-01
Calculation
Guerrini et al. (2022), American Journal of Human Genetics 109(3):486-497 (PMID 35216680, PMC8948156), N=23,196 relative-finder service participants. Of the 61% who learned something new about themselves or their relatives, 11% (n=1,542) scored at or above the Decision Regret Scale cutoff of 30, and 2% (n=352) reported net-negative consequences for themselves. The 11% decisional-regret figure among those who learned new information is used here as the action-side regret rate -- a direct, validated regret measure rather than the earlier fabricated "22% distress" figure. Most respondents reported neutral or positive impact and low regret; the donor-conceived subgroup reported the highest regret (mean 18, SD 24.3 vs. overall mean 10).
[2]BMC Psychiatry — "I'm trying to figure out who the hell I am": Examining the psychosocial and mental health experience of individuals learning "Not Parent Expected" news from a direct-to-consumer DNA ancestry test
Peer-reviewed
Individuals who learned a 'Not Parent Expected' (non-paternity) result from a consumer DNA test typically described an extraordinary shock with a negative impact on mental health and a severe disruption of self-identity
Excerpt
“"participants typically described their experience as an extraordinary shock that had a negative impact on their mental health ... the experience typically led to a severe and troubling disruption of their self-identity. This study reveals an expanding, vulnerable, and under-researched population facing unique stressors, that may be at high risk of developing a psychiatric disorder."
”
Source data from
2025-01-06
Accessed
2026-07-01
Calculation
Careau, Larmuseau, Drumsta & Whitley (2025), BMC Psychiatry 25(1):9 (PMID 39757164), qualitative study of 52 semi-structured interviews with people who received "Not Parent Expected" (NPE) results from a DTC DNA ancestry test. Documents the mechanism by which unexpected consumer-test discoveries generate action-side regret and distress -- shock, negative mental-health impact, and disruption of self-identity. Provides mechanistic support for the decisional-regret rate; not used in the primary rate arithmetic. Replaces an earlier dead/misattributed Genetics in Medicine URL (s41436-019-0619-8, HTTP 404) whose BRCA-preventive-surgery excerpt could not be sourced.
[3]California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General — Attorney General Bonta Sues Chrome Holding Co., Formerly Known as 23andMe, Over 2023 Data Breach
Government report
The 2023 23andMe data breach affected nearly 7 million users across the United States, including 855,541 Californians; the renamed company (Chrome Holding Co.) is now in bankruptcy proceedings
Excerpt
“"In 2023, 23andMe experienced a data breach that affected nearly 7 million users across the United States, including 855,541 Californians."
”
Source data from
2026-05-28
Accessed
2026-07-03
Calculation
California Attorney General press release (People v. Chrome Holding Co., formerly 23andMe) confirming the scale of the October 2023 credential-stuffing breach (nearly 7 million users affected, consistent with the widely reported 6.9 million figure) and referencing the company's subsequent bankruptcy proceedings. Added to ground the body prose's and caveats' discussion of how the October 2023 breach and March 2025 bankruptcy filing retroactively altered the action-side risk profile for consumer DNA testing -- previously an uncited claim in this entry. Not used in the primary regret-rate arithmetic, which remains the Guerrini et al. (2022) 11% figure above.
Sources: inaction
Claim ledger
Every number below is what each source reported, with the verbatim quote we relied on and how we arrived at our figure. Click any link to verify directly.
[1]The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research — Genetic Testing: Ancestry Interest, But Privacy Concerns
Reference source
17% of US adults have been genetically tested and another 52% are interested in having it done; 50% are extremely or very concerned that for-profit DNA testing companies would share genetic information
Excerpt
“"Seventeen percent have been genetically tested, and another 52 percent are interested in having it done. ... 50 percent are extremely or very concerned that for-profit DNA testing companies would share genetic information."
”
Source data from
2018-07-19
Accessed
2026-07-01
Calculation
AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research nationwide poll, fielded June 13-18, 2018 via the AmeriSpeak probability-based panel, n=1,109 adults, margin of sampling error +/- 4.1 percentage points. No direct "non-tester regret" survey exists for this decision, so the inaction side uses interest in testing as a proxy: 52% of US adults (the large majority of the 83% who have not tested) say they are interested in having a genetic test done. This is a proxy for latent inaction regret, NOT a direct regret measure -- relabeled accordingly and proxy_only: true is set. Replaces an earlier unverifiable Pew URL (pewresearch.org/science/2020/08/27/...) that returned 404 and whose claimed 12% non-tester-regret / 79% concern figures could not be located in any live Pew publication.
[2]Pew Research Center — Americans and Privacy: Concerned, Confused and Feeling Lack of Control
Primary study
81% of the public say the potential risks of data collection by companies outweigh the benefits; 79% are very or somewhat concerned about how companies use the data collected about them
Excerpt
“"81% of the public say that the potential risks they face because of data collection by companies outweigh the benefits ... 79% of adults assert they are very or somewhat concerned about how companies are using the data they collect about them."
”
Source data from
2019-11-15
Accessed
2026-07-01
Calculation
Pew Research Center, November 2019, n=4,272 US adults. Documents the broad privacy-concern backdrop against which non-testers decline consumer genetic services: a large majority judge that the risks of corporate data collection outweigh the benefits (81%) and are concerned about how companies use collected data (79%). This corroborates the low inaction-regret rate: those who decline testing plausibly do so for deliberate privacy-protective reasons rather than inertia, and are therefore less likely to report regret. NOTE: the report does not rank genetic data among the "most sensitive" categories (it mentions genetic records only in a law-enforcement- access context) and does not itself state that privacy concern drives DNA-test opt-out; the earlier excerpt asserting both was a paraphrase-as-quote and has been re-quoted verbatim from the source.
Caveats
The 11% action-regret rate is the share of relative-finder participants who learned new information and then scored above the Decision Regret Scale cutoff (Guerrini et al. 2022); it is not 11% of all test takers, since only 61% learned something new and most of those reported neutral or positive impact. The majority of consumer test takers report positive outcomes including ancestry connection and health awareness. The subset who receive unexpected results (NPE/non-paternity, unknown half-siblings, high-penetrance disease variants such as BRCA1/2) face compounding decisions that can amplify downstream regret beyond the test itself -- the donor-conceived subgroup reported the highest regret of all. The 23andMe data breach of October 2023, which exposed the genetic and personal data of approximately 6.9 million users, and 23andMe's subsequent bankruptcy filing in March 2025, significantly altered the risk profile of consumer testing retroactively: users who tested before the breach now face a compromised data security situation they did not consent to, likely increasing action-side regret among that cohort. The inaction side has no direct regret survey; its 52% figure is a proxy -- the share of US adults who say they are interested in being tested (AP-NORC, 2018) -- and overstates felt regret, since interest is not the same as wishing one had already tested. That proxy may also be shifting in the post-breach environment as public awareness of consumer genomics risks has increased. The decision's stakes are also asymmetric by health variant: a consumer who learns they carry a BRCA1 mutation has potentially life-altering clinical information; a consumer who discovers unexpected paternity faces a family-disrupting revelation. Both outcomes are rare but high-magnitude, making expected-regret calculations sensitive to tail-event probabilities in ways that aggregate rates do not capture.
