Realizarse una prueba de ADN de consumo (ascendencia y riesgos de salud) vs. preservar la ignorancia genética
Si actúas
Hacerse un test de ADN de consumo (23andMe, AncestryDNA o similar)
11%
Si no actúas
Renunciar al test de ADN, manteniendo la ignorancia genética
52%
Porcentaje de quienes luego se arrepienten de cada elección. Las barras y el registro completo aparecen abajo.
Salud
Última revisión 2026-05-13
Calidad de la evidencia 3.13/5
Puntuación de revisión en ocho dimensiones según la
rúbrica de calidad
. Cada dimensión puntuada de 1 a 5.
D1 Verificación de fuentes
2/5
D2 Autoridad e independencia de las fuentes
3/5
D3 Precisión de la tasa de arrepentimiento
2/5
D4 Comparabilidad de las fuentes
2/5
D5 Patrón de Gilovich
4/5
D6 Calidad de la prosa
4/5
D7 Completitud de las advertencias
5/5
D8 Calidad de la muestra
3/5
Media3.13/5
Datos sustitutos — no existe ninguna encuesta directa sobre el arrepentimiento para esta decisión. Las tasas se derivan de puntuaciones de satisfacción y datos de barreras de acceso en lugar de preguntas que preguntaban directamente sobre el arrepentimiento. Ver advertencias más abajo.
Arrepentimiento por acción
Hacerse un test de ADN de consumo (23andMe, AncestryDNA o similar)
11%
~11% de quienes obtuvieron información nueva de una prueba de ADN de búsqueda de parientes reportó arrepentimiento por la decisión
Consumidores que se realizan pruebas de ADN (23andMe, AncestryDNA)
transversal retrospectivo, 2018
Arrepentimiento por inacción
Renunciar al test de ADN, manteniendo la ignorancia genética
52%
~52% de los adultos de EE. UU. tiene interés en hacerse una prueba genética (un proxy del arrepentimiento por inacción, no una encuesta directa de arrepentimiento)
Adultos estadounidenses que no han tomado una prueba de ADN al consumidor
transversal, agosto 2020
% que se arrepienten de esta elección
Hacerse un test de ADN de consumo (23andMe, AncestryDNA o similar)Renunciar al test de ADN, manteniendo la ignorancia genética
11%52%
inaction dominates — Domina la inacción — la mayoría se arrepiente de no actuar.
Decisiones relacionadas
Decisiones semánticamente similares — mismo terreno, distintos compromisos.
Abrirse a la no monogamia consensuadaMantenerse estrictamente monógamo
15%21%
Inacción dominante
Arrepentimiento por inacción 1.4× mayor
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.
Fuentes: acción
Registro de evidencia
Cada número a continuación es lo que reportó cada fuente, con la cita textual en la que nos basamos y cómo llegamos a nuestra cifra. Haz clic en cualquier enlace para verificarlo directamente.
[1]American Journal of Human Genetics — Family secrets: Experiences and outcomes of participating in direct-to-consumer genetic relative-finder services
Revisado por pares
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
Extracto
“"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."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2022-03-03
Accedido
2026-07-01
Cálculo
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
Revisado por pares
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
Extracto
“"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."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2025-01-06
Accedido
2026-07-01
Cálculo
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
Informe gubernamental
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
Extracto
“"In 2023, 23andMe experienced a data breach that affected nearly 7 million users across the United States, including 855,541 Californians."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2026-05-28
Accedido
2026-07-03
Cálculo
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.
Fuentes: inacción
Registro de evidencia
Cada número a continuación es lo que reportó cada fuente, con la cita textual en la que nos basamos y cómo llegamos a nuestra cifra. Haz clic en cualquier enlace para verificarlo directamente.
[1]The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research — Genetic Testing: Ancestry Interest, But Privacy Concerns
Fuente de referencia
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
Extracto
“"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."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2018-07-19
Accedido
2026-07-01
Cálculo
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
Estudio primario
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
Extracto
“"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."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2019-11-15
Accedido
2026-07-01
Cálculo
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.
Advertencias
La tasa del 11% de arrepentimiento del lado de la acción es la proporción de participantes en la búsqueda de parientes que obtuvieron información nueva y luego puntuaron por encima del umbral de la Decision Regret Scale (Guerrini et al. 2022); no es el 11% de todos quienes se hacen la prueba, ya que solo el 61% obtuvo algo nuevo y la mayoría de ellos reportó un impacto neutral o positivo. La mayoría de quienes se hacen pruebas de consumo reporta resultados positivos, incluida la conexión con la ascendencia y la concienciación sobre la salud. El subconjunto que recibe resultados inesperados (falsa paternidad/NPE, medio hermanos desconocidos, variantes de enfermedad de alta penetrancia como BRCA1/2) enfrenta decisiones que se acumulan y que pueden amplificar el arrepentimiento posterior más allá de la prueba en sí — el subgrupo de personas concebidas por donante reportó el mayor arrepentimiento de todos. La filtración de datos de 23andMe de octubre de 2023, que expuso los datos genéticos y personales de aproximadamente 6,9 millones de usuarios, y la posterior declaración de quiebra de 23andMe en marzo de 2024, alteraron de forma significativa y retroactiva el perfil de riesgo de las pruebas de consumo: los usuarios que se hicieron la prueba antes de la filtración enfrentan ahora una situación de seguridad de datos comprometida a la que no consintieron, lo que probablemente aumenta el arrepentimiento del lado de la acción en esa cohorte. El lado de la inacción no tiene una encuesta directa de arrepentimiento; su cifra del 52% es un proxy — la proporción de adultos de EE. UU. que dice tener interés en hacerse la prueba (AP-NORC, 2018) — y sobrestima el arrepentimiento sentido, ya que el interés no es lo mismo que desear haberse hecho ya la prueba. Ese proxy también puede estar cambiando en el entorno posterior a la filtración, a medida que ha aumentado la conciencia pública sobre los riesgos de la genómica de consumo. Lo que está en juego en la decisión también es asimétrico según la variante de salud: quien descubre que porta una mutación BRCA1 obtiene información clínica potencialmente decisiva para su vida; quien descubre una paternidad inesperada enfrenta una revelación que puede desestabilizar a la familia. Ambos resultados son raros pero de gran magnitud, lo que hace que los cálculos de arrepentimiento esperado sean sensibles a las probabilidades de eventos de cola de maneras que las tasas agregadas no capturan.
