My concern is that the consumer demand for personal genome technologies is fueled by genetic determinism and essentialism which are now completely unconnected to the biological science from which these doctrines were initially derived. Perhaps no expert warnings (however articulated in the fine print of test results) will now curb the popular enthusiasm for knowing one’s true self that only Schrodinger’s “hereditary code-script” can promise.

We ought to ask to what extent geneticists and other experts can help remedy misconceptions that may exist about the deterministic aspects of nucleic acids, especially as private companies are encouraged to formulate more speculative categories and claims. Market pressures for personal genomic technologies likely do not align with biologically responsible claims. Also, we ought to consider whether European-style regulation will alleviate the troublesome aspects of these technologies, which, by training our attention on the genetic, could obfuscate other significant biological insights, and at worse replace other meaningful sources of our identities.

There is one thing these technologies do for sure: focus people’s attention on their genes. As people come to identify with their genetic codes, they may come to understand themselves in new ways in terms of their abilities (in addition to disease risks, etc). But there are two things I wish to assert about genetic propensities for ability. First, it is imperative that a genetic focus not turn our gaze away from the multiplicity of factors that lead to a trait like an ability. Second, genes for ability are derived from genetic similarities among groups of people already coded as having a particular ability; therefore, in a system where particular genes are correlated with abilities, there is no stable referent. So even if it turns out that a genetic association between being in a particular group and having some ability exists, the genetic code used was derived from similarities between people already coded for an ability within a complex web of multiple causes.

But as a geneticist recently reminded me, the connections between genes and traits such as behaviors and abilities are quite loose. So imagine everyone engaging with a technology of the self that includes education about the rich complexity of the role (and non-role) of genes in their lives, including being educated about what is not known. This could lead us all beyond rote understandings of genetics that underlie discriminatory essentialist views along traditional fractures (race, class, gender, sexuality). But this may require regulation, as it may not be in the interests of profit-making corporations offering these services to educate people about how their genes actually work.

Yet perhaps the disconnects that people will inevitably experience between their genetic codes and their abilities could foster deeper appreciation of complexity. Perhaps a person will learn that he or she has a genetic propensity for some skill which shores up their social position, or perhaps this person will learn that they have failed in light their genetic gifts. And even more interesting, perhaps many will learn that they have far outpaced the predictions for ability coded in their genes. Unfortunately, I fear that individuals in future generations may encounter knowledge about genetic ability at a young age, and this may become a self-fulfilling prophecy for some. But hopefully for many there will be stories of resistance. Nevertheless, widespread understanding of the complexities of genetics will be necessary in connection with these technologies of the self, or genetic determinism could become a more formidable force.

What does it mean to perceive a group of people as strangers one moment, and as family the next? What does such a shift in perspective require? It requires reconceptualizing oneself to some degree. One must move from seeing oneself as a student on summer break, a tourist amidst strangers, to a niece, a cousin, a granddaughter.

In my case, it was not the discovery of an essential property of the self that brought about this change in perspective. It was the social practices of an extended family, and an invitation to participate. Of course, something served as a launching point for this social interaction (genetic relatedness or—more likely—a common family history), but it was the participation in the group that brought about the reconceptualization.

One may undergo a similar shift in perspective upon discovering that there is a group of people in the world (or in one’s local community) with a genetic propensity similar to one’s own. What would unite this group is not a belief that all of its members will develop the phenotype in question, but rather the more moderate idea that they have a genetic propensity in common. In other words, faith in determinism is not required for genetic information to affect the formation of biosocial groups, and it is the practices of such groups that are important in shaping one’s identity.