This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Genetics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Companies Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{ portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{ WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Molecular Biology: Genetics / COMPBIO Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Computational Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance). California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance). Google Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Google To-do: history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles for most of the other products listed here and here. Assess : All articles in the Category:Unknown-importance Google articles and Category:Unassessed Google articles using the project's assessment scale Expand : Google Mapathon, Google Talkback Maintain : This WikiProject Merge : Google mobile services into List of Google products Stubs : Category:Stub-Class Google articles and Category:Google stubs Update : List of features in Android and Gmail interface#Product integration. Update logos of Google Marketing Platform products Other : Add more stuff to this to do list if you like! (click here...) create: Help the Google article for a good article status Improve the Outline of Google Get more members using : {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Invite Members}} Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Genealogy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genealogy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genealogy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GenealogyWikipedia:WikiProject GenealogyTemplate:WikiProject GenealogyGenealogy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

This article really, really reads like an ad.

To the precious poster who did not sign, I agree. I'm adding a tag to address this. TPREX ( talk) 05:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Agree that this is ad-like. I note in particular that care is taken to avoid names of competing vendors, placing in context of existing and better established genetic tests, etc. 152.132.8.194 ( talk) 13:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree. It reads like an ad and does not mention other companies. Moreover, there's a lack of any criticism and objectivity on the usefulness of results given to clients. It has been shown that many deseases are not governed by an existing genetic predisposition but more by lifestyle, nutrition, exercises... In 2010, a blog of the scientific magazine Nature reported that 23andme had mixed up samples of 96 clients. ( http://blogs.nature.com/news/2010/06/consumer_genomics_company_snaf_1.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.156.234 ( talk) 20:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply

My impression absolutely concurs with and reflects the comments previously mentioned, but I also have serious concerns about the absence of information pertaining the privacy implications of sharing genetic/medical information and how this data is currently being used (such as for "research" and who has access to it, as well as potential future information sharing and whether consumers will be notified about privacy policy changes, and whether the option to opt-out will be available and/or honored. Blk Mtn ( talk) 03:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Blk Mtn reply

The 'Media' section is unusually large and does not contribute to the scope of the article to give facts on the company. I would shorten it to a single sentence that mentions that the company has been featured widely in the media linked to a few sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.156.234 ( talk) 20:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply

There have been a number of news articles about this company (and its competitors) relatively recently, which could be used as sources in an expansion of this article. I may do it myself later, but in case anyone gets to it before I do, here are some which may prove useful:

• Reuters
• Wired
• New York Times another New York Times
• San Francisco Chronicle
• BusinessWeek

It's also all over various blogs, for those who wish more background, but those are of course generally not considered reliable sources.

Thanks, JavaTenor ( talk) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I think it would be interesting to note the origin of the company's name, especially for non-native English speakers.

88.1.6.247 ( talk) 13:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The Wired article referenced at the end of the entry says "The company's name is a reference to the 23 pairs of chromosomes that contain our DNA." I'm guessing that they wanted the shortest possible (yet still intelligible) name based on that. Bricology ( talk) 18:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article is already under has our tag, I have now reassessed it to make sure if is in the right WikiProject. Upon reassessment of the article, I'd like to make a few points, as shown below:

• Reassess article with class and importance factors
• Reassessed tags for correct placements

Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. I'm glad this article could fall within our scope, and I hope to see it grow large! Many thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

This article begins with a mini-catalog of companies in the field. Maybe such a catalog would be more appropriate in the Medical genetics page. Genomas [1] is another genetic medicine company to include in such a catalog. Page Notes ( talk) 15:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Is it possible to get a logo (even low-res) to represent the article? 76.200.157.188 ( talk) 03:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply

"However, critics warn in the scientific literature that health predictions are not currently effective enough to have any clinical utility.[11]" Regardless of the citation, I don't believe the line contributes anything to this article. It would be more relevant and appropriate to discuss opinions regarding health predictions elsewhere. To me, there doesn't appear to be a good reason for this line to be in this article and I think it should be deleted. Russell Dent ( talk) 14:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I would nuke that as well. -- Threeafterthree ( talk) 14:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I thought it might be helpful to collect here a list of sources about 23andMe and its current communication with the FDA. I'll start with one here; feel free to add others by replies or edits to this talk page section.

• Seife, Charles (27 November 2013). "23andMe Is Terrifying, But Not for the Reasons the FDA Thinks". Scientific American. Retrieved 27 November 2013. {{ cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv ( help)

-- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 02:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Blaine Bettinger has included a list of articles on his website. Helen Online 04:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I found another one overnight.

• Herper, Matthew (25 November 2013). "23andStupid: Is 23andMe Self-Destructing?". Forbes. Retrieved 28 November 2013. {{ cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv ( help)

-- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 15:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Here's another good source, which I'm surprised isn't already used in the article.

Hensley, Scott (25 November 2013). "FDA Tells 23andMe To Stop Selling Popular Genetic Test". National Public Radio: All Things Considered.

There are some good quotations from experts there. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 23:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Here are some related commentaries on this, with the first being an annotated set of links.

• I Got Your 23andMe – FDA Food Fight Links Right Here
• FDA Muzzles 23andMe After Talks Break Down
• FDA’s Culture Is Mendelian Dominant Over 23andme’s Business Model

Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The problem with this article on Wikipedia for a long time is that it has been sourced from company press releases rather than from independent journalistic and scientific sources. For a company whose products and services are tied up with medical claims, as 23andMe's products and services undeniably are, it is important to source this article as much as possible according to the Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources for medicine. There is a lot of discussion in the medical literature about how reliable gene tests are, to date, in identifying human disease risk, and I cite some of the current sources in a broader source list on genetics and human biology, which I share with all Wikipedians so that you can use the sources to verify articles. (You are also very welcome to suggest new sources for that source list. Medical sources, which I can check at a comprehensive biomedical library in my town, are especially welcomed as suggestions.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 21:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Several recent additions to the article have included sloppy interpretation of sources and lack of fact-checking (e.g. basing interpretation on the headline instead of the facts behind the story). Please be careful, especially when we are talking about legal issues. It is also worth reading and citing different sources to get the full story. Helen Online 09:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Here's another good source. I Had My DNA Picture Taken, With Varying Results -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 21:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply

It's not specific to 23andMe though (and anecdotal evidence). It may be useful for the more general articles on genetic testing to present views of people like Craig Venter. Helen Online 07:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I tried to correct the article, but someone reverted it. 23andme used to sell them, and may or may not do it in the future, but it does not do it now. It allows old customers to view previously bought info, but the article should not say that the company is selling assessments. Roger ( talk) 18:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply

The article only says 23andMe offers a DTC DNA testing service. I reverted your edit and repeated the suspension issue which was already covered in a later section because your edit ignored the fact that the vast majority of customers still have access to their health results and new customers may at some later stage. The wording may need some tweaking as long as it covers the facts. Helen Online 19:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply

The article says: "Results are posted online, along with an assessment of inherited traits, genealogy, and possible congenital risk factors". That is false. The company is not currently in the business of selling any health-related assessments. Roger ( talk) 21:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Source? This kind of editing question is easily resolved by recommending some reliable, secondary sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 04:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Just look at their home page. It says this, with a big exclamation point at the top: "23andMe provides ancestry-related genetic reports and uninterpreted raw genetic data. We no longer offer our health-related genetic reports." The WP article is written to describe that product that the company quit selling 7 months ago. [2] Roger ( talk) 05:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Why are you only quoting part of the sentence here? The article now (after my edit mentioned in my initial reply above) says "Results are posted online, along with an assessment of inherited traits, genealogy, and possible congenital risk factors, although health-related results for customers who purchased the test from November 22, 2013 have been suspended while undergoing regulatory review." Helen Online 07:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I copied the sources from the section below, so sources are not an issue. The sentence wording could probably be improved, as long as half the story is not removed which is what happened. Helen Online 07:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I quoted the part that is false. No source says it. Roger ( talk) 15:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC) reply

We have not reached consensus and the only place edit warring will get you is blocked. Helen Online 15:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Schlafly Are you suggesting that Wikipedia does not reflect the sources cited, or that the sources themselves are incorrect? I fail to understand your rationale for removing this information. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC) reply

All of the sources say that 23andme does not sell health-related assessments. I edited the WP article to reflect that fact. Roger ( talk) 18:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC) reply

HelenOnline and WeijiBaikeBianji, Schlafly likes the sources but feels they were not presented correctly on Wikipedia. The sources actually say that 23andme does not sell health-related assessments. Do you agree that the sources say this? Do you agree that Schlafly's edits reflect the sources? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I think the statement that would reflect current reality in article text (I am basing this mostly on what Helen said) is that 23andMe is not currently marketing health-related assessments, but still allows access to information from the tissue samples for previous customers. I am not a customer, but it does look to me from the published sources like 23andMe ceased an earlier practice without completely closing up shop. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 21:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC) reply

That section of the article does not use the word "sell" or mention offering health analysis per se. Later on in another section the article says: "As of December 5, 2013, 23andMe is only selling raw genetic data and ancestry-related results." Health results are still posted online for older customers (which was well-sourced). I was happy to work together towards an acceptable consensus wording incorporating all the facts (which were already in the article albeit not in that section) but Roger apparently was not. Helen Online 08:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I initiated the discussion on this page in order to improve the accuracy of the article. I changed "pending FDA approval" because we don't know what application might be pending. I qualified the Time award, because that was for the health results that are no longer offered. I added that signups have slowed as a result of the FDA orders. I welcome further improvements. Roger ( talk) 12:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Initiating a discussion doesn't mean you can do whatever you want without consensus, and your new (and old) edits need sources. And no, I won't clean up your mess just so you can revert me. Helen Online 12:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply

HelenOnline - I am still not sure what is wrong with the content, other than references being removed. Schlafly - You deleted citations to reliable sources, and I am not sure why. Since this content is being questioned I think that every sentence should have a citation after it. As Helen says, content without sources is generally considered worse than content with sources, and usually stands during discussion. How would you feel about re-adding or replacing the references you removed so that every sentence has a citation? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Apart from removing reliable sources, which I had added to support his first edit, it wiped out content about what the product initially included and still does for older customers. We had already covered the suspension of health analysis for new clients later in the article and I don't have a problem repeating it in the earlier section with sources, and tried without success to achieve a consensus wording. Helen Online 14:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply

This article is not meant to be an advertisement and nobody should be buying the product based on one sentence in it (reading the whole article would make everything abundantly clear). Ignoring the health focus of this company, even if this changes permanently and irrevocably in future, would make it an extremely unbalanced article. Helen Online 15:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply

It also removed context for the whole regulatory section. A better question might be to ask Roger why he insists on removing it. Helen Online 15:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Okay, I added the FDA references back in. The article does have the warning that it "appears to be written like an advertisement." It does not seem important or significant to me that the company continues to allow old customers to view the reports that they previously purchased and accessed, or that purchasers who did not get what they were promised were offered a refund. It might be news if the company failed to do these things. Companies change their product offerings all the time, and how they manage the transition is just not interesting. I doubt that an article about 23andme today would mention it. But go ahead and tell me if I am wrong. Roger ( talk) 16:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply

That warning is not an invitation to make it more like an advertisement, quite the opposite. The company has to date been primarily focussed on health analysis and research, so not covering how that has worked in the past and continues to work for at least 500,000 customers makes no sense especially when we go on to discuss problems that arose with the regulators as a result of it. Helen Online 16:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is also not a newspaper, so that comparison is irrelevant. Helen Online 17:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply

In the absence of a response, I have restored balance to the article, and in the process expanded the product description. Please discuss here if necessary. Helen Online 13:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I see that you made about 50 edits. I agree with whoever said that the article reads like a company advertisement, so I have restored that warning at the top. In particular, I think that it is very misleading for the lead paragraph to brag about 23andme having an invention of the year, and not mention that the FDA has ordered that product discontinued. Roger ( talk) 16:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I have made a lot of changes since that tag was added, and you have addressed the lead. I would hate to think all that effort was in vain. WeijiBaikeBianji, as you added the tag initially do you agree that it is still necessary and if not what still needs to be changed? Helen Online 07:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I think the article is much improved since the advert tag was added, so I wouldn't revert a removal of the tag given the current condition of the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 14:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC) reply

The Canadian web page for 23andMe features a 9,000 word Terms of Service crammed with legalisms. 'Nuff said. David F ( talk) 16:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Ferrierd Wikipedia does not publish original research, so this article cannot talk about that unless you find a published source which covers this issue. If you do find such a source, please share here so that this article can give this information. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I think the underwriting facts can be trimmed and folded into a company overview. The initial funding by Google and others is worth mentioning, but the later additional offerings could be omitted. Timetraveler3.14 ( talk) 22:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I have a Ph.D in finance but I have no idea what a series D and series E round is related to venture captial, if this is important it should probably be explained or otherwise omitted.

Information regarding the development of the technology and science of this product and its algorithms should be included. How does DNA from one's saliva provide enough DNA to sequence and guide interpretations? Who decided this should be the first commercially-available gene sequencing product like this, and why? Mp6180 ( talk) 22:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply

   .... if i'm not mistaken about there being an alert template for articles that should be updated to reflect specific recent news. "Large DNA study using 23andMe data finds 15 sites linked to depression" in Washington Post of ‎Aug 1, 2016 ("Scientists announced on Monday that they had pinpointed [, using-23andme-data,] 15 locations in our DNA that are associated with depression, one of the most common mental health conditions and one that is estimated to cost the world billions in health-care costs and lost ...").
-- Jerzy• t 10:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

in general having content about people filing lawsuits is WP:NOTNEWS WP:CRYSTALBALL stuff, often (not always, and making no judgements here) driven by people connected to the suits financially or emotionally.

Its best to wait until there is some significant action - like a class being certified or a judgement. Many of these go no where. The content below is hyper-local, timewise.

Class action lawsuits

On November 27, 2013, 23andMe customer Lisa Casey filed a class action lawsuit against 23andMe in the Southern California federal district court alleging misleading advertising of its PGS test "when there is no analytical or clinical validation for the PGS for its intended uses". Casey is suing for at least $5 million in damages, representing the aggregate of the $99 PGS test purchase price paid by thousands of customers the plaintiff believes to be in the class. ^{[1] [2] [3]}

On December 19, 2013, another class action lawsuit was filed against 23andMe alleging misleading advertising by Tara Stefani and Tanya Vullanueva in the Massachusetts federal district court. ^[4]

-- Jytdog ( talk) 02:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC) reply

So if a customer in EU orders the 23andme test NOW (December 2017), is the amount of health information same as a customer ordering in India or any random country?

ee1518 ( talk) 13:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I've now twice removed content touting their science. Both times the refs ( PMID  27479909 and PMID  28892059)were primary sources per WP:MEDDEF. The first time this was added, there were no results stated and this was (in my view) borderline OK... but it is still grabbing a primary source and talking about it, which is not what we do here. We summarize secondary sources, not "report" on primary sources. The second time it was added was worse as it stated the results.

If some good quality secondary WP:RS source actually reports on the fact that they are publishing science, that is noteworthy and fine to discuss. For the results of their science, that should be sourced to a secondary source per WP:MEDRS. Jytdog ( talk) 12:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jytdog ( talk · contribs) removed the issues with primary sources and improved the article quite well, so I'm taking down the template that I added. R9tgokunks ✡ 00:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply

User:R9tgokunks In this diff you restored: a) an image that is copyvio (check the file upload) and b) content based on a press release, which is company marketing. WP articles as you know should be driven by independent sources; a whole section built from press releases is no longer a WP article. Jytdog ( talk) 00:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I understand that. I'm the one who put the primary sources template on the top of the page. I had a source in mind that I was going to add but you swiftly reverted anyway, so i'll get back to it later. R9tgokunks ✡ 01:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply

23&me now has 10 million users. I do not know how to cite sources, but this is indeed true. It can be easily found out with some basic research. I even have proof from them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.39.251 ( talk) 00:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC) reply

[ | This article] is pretty interesting to answer your question. It's written by 23andme engineers and it shows how they run imputation on 1 million people per day! And there's plots spanning over ten days. So definitely more than ten million. And the source is - in an indirect way - actually the company itself, at least the engineering department Yinwang888 ( talk) 07:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Is the companies name "23andMe Holding Co." Or "23andMe, Inc."? Stock records show it using the suffix "Co." While the website and crunchbase show it using the suffix "Inc." WiinterU ( talk) 19:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@WiinterU 23andMe Holding Co. was formed when 23andMe, Inc. merged with the special purpose acquisition company VG Acquisition Corp. 23andMe Holding Co. is the merged entity while 23andMe, Inc. is its subsidiary. This is detailed in the annual report (after the table of contents). Ptrnext ( talk) 05:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Oh, why isn't 23andMe, Inc. listed as a subsidiary of this company? WiinterU ( talk) 12:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The SPAC is not a real company. Effectively the holding company and 23andMe, Inc. are the same; just structured in levels due to the SPAC merger. We don't need to list it as a subsidiary. Ptrnext ( talk) 15:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply