Abstract
For-profit organizations play a considerable role in the dissemination of scientific research and information. In the case of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, this is important because how consumers learn about genetic science can influence health decisions and support for science. Through a content analysis of Twitter posts (N = 1,000), this study examined how 23andMe balances traditional promotion, communicating product benefits, and sharing scientific research. Results indicated that about half of all posts share science news but sharing science has declined over time. Far fewer posts communicate about the products or their benefits, but these posts garner more retweets and replies.
Science communication has grown as both a professional practice and area of scholarly study in recent decades (Akin & Scheufele, 2017). When it comes to the sharing of scientific discoveries and news, research has examined the communication of organizations such as universities (e.g., Trench, 2017) and government agencies (e.g., Lee & VanDyke, 2015). However, science is also an integral part of many for-profit companies; and depending on the type of products or services they provide, science communication may become part of their corporate communication efforts. This may include communicating technical information about the product itself, but may also extend beyond that to include sharing industry news and scientific discoveries more broadly.
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing companies offer an interesting example of corporate activity, where explaining the science itself to consumers might be seen as important from a marketing or consumer relations perspective. This deserves more study because consumer knowledge of genetic science likely aids in interpretation of test results and may also influence how consumers perceive related scientific topics. In the case study presented here, we examine the Twitter activity of 23andMe, which is one of the largest DTC genetic testing companies, was the first to receive FDA approval, and until recently was also the only major genetic testing company to offer both health and ancestral information (Hayden, 2017).
Part of why understanding the communication habits of genetic testing companies is important is the immense popularity of the tests. In fact, as of July 2019, 15% of U.S. adults had taken at least one DTC genetic test (Graf, 2019). Despite the popularity, 23andMe and other companies face many challenges related to assuaging concerns about data security and privacy and communicating with consumers about the science behind their product and what it can tell them (AP-NORC, 2018). Like other consumer-facing companies, one way DTC genetic-testing companies connect with consumers is by communicating the benefits of their products (Singleton et al., 2012). For instance, they may communicate about the health information consumers can learn from individual tests (Covolo et al., 2012) or share heartwarming stories about relatives meeting for the first time. By communicating benefits, companies strive to match the personal values of the consumer as consumers make purchasing decisions based on the “benefits they get from buying, using or consuming the product” (Hooley & Saunders, 1993, p. 17).
One medium that companies, including 23andMe, use to connect with consumers and communicate product benefits is Twitter. Twitter can provide consumers an opportunity to directly engage with a company. Consumers can reply to tweets made by a company, share a company’s tweets with their followers, and can private message a company with concerns or questions. These engagement practices can help consumers feel a personal connection with the company, which can ultimately lead to increased support and generate revenue (Baird & Parasnis, 2011). Relevant to the current study, Twitter is also a preferred platform among the science community (Collins et al., 2016).
The purpose of this study is to examine how 23andMe balances traditional promotion, communicating product benefits, and sharing scientific research. How consumers learn about genetic science and interact with it can influence their support for science funding or policy, their health decisions, and how they perceive themselves. Thus, this study is an important step in examining the role of for-profit organizations in communicating genetic science.
Literature Review
Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing
Traditionally, health care providers would facilitate genetic testing for patients when it was deemed medically beneficial. However, DTC genetic testing, which eliminates the role of the physician, has become increasingly prevalent in recent years (Graf, 2019). The services provided by these companies allow consumers to send in genetic material (such as saliva), and in turn, receive health or ancestral information. The data provided may include risk information related to specific diseases based on genetic variants, where an individual’s ancestors likely came from, and how closely related a consumer is to others who have taken the same test. Among DTC genetic-testing companies, 23andMe stands out because it is one of the largest, was the first to receive FDA approval, and is one of the few to provide both health and ancestral data (Hayden, 2017).
Although perceptions of genetic testing are generally positive, there have been recent concerns about privacy due to law enforcement applications (AP-NORC, 2018) and general apprehension surrounding genetic science due to new gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR (Weisberg et al., 2017). Previous research has examined the effects of DTC genetic tests on consumers and their perceptions. For instance, research has found that the majority of Americans believe medical professionals should be involved in explaining genetic test results, which is not typically the case with DTC tests (Almeling & Gadarian, 2014). Consumers have also expressed concerns about their ability to act on health-related genetic test results (Bloss et al., 2010).
Throughout the literature on DTC genetic tests and their impact on consumers, limited research has focused on how these companies communicate about their products or the science behind them, or how the media or individuals communicate about the companies or tests. A notable exception is previous studies examining DTC genetic-testing companies’ websites. This research has found that company websites communicate benefits more often than risks or limitations (Singleton et al., 2012) and they often use messages and images that suggest medical credibility, DTC genetic testing as a form of empowerment, and as a form of responsibility to one’s family or future generations (Schaper & Schicktanz, 2018). Other communication research has examined how consumers themselves share genetic risk information on social media (Lee et al., 2013). However, these studies are limited in sample and scope and there is still a need for more research on DTC genetic testing from a science communication perspective.
Science and Corporate Communication
Science communication scholarship encompasses a range of topics, including how scientists communicate with one another or lay publics and science journalism. Recently, there have been calls to examine science public relations more (e.g., Borchelt & Nielsen, 2014). Such studies have looked at different types of organizations such as government agencies (Lee & VanDyke, 2015) and museums (Jarreau et al., 2019). However, less attention has been given to how for-profit organizations, especially large corporations, communicate science and their role in influencing scientific knowledge and attitudes. Studying this requires that science communication is examined as a form of corporate communication.
Corporate communication is defined as an instrument of management by means of which all consciously used forms of internal and external communication are harmonised as effectively and efficiently as possible, so as to create a favourable basis for relationships with groups upon which the company is dependent. (Van Riel & Fombrun, 2007, p. 25)
Based on this definition, corporate communication captures how organizations orchestrate different messages and behaviors as a central activity. As a way to manage all communication under one function, corporate communication can be characterized as a company’s attempt to project one unifying image of its products or services (Christensen & Cornelissen, 2011).
Corporate communication research often focuses on how organizations communicate about their products (e.g., Wang, 2017), stock prices (e.g., Hoffmann & Aeschlimann, 2017), or corporate social responsibility efforts (e.g., Abitbol & Lee, 2017). However, the charge lies in minimizing discrepancies between different company initiatives and the corporation’s identity. For science-based companies, like those that sell DTC genetic tests, they must still engage in traditional corporate communication practices, but the nature of their product also necessitates communicating, or even educating, about science. Finding ways to communicate complex scientific information while attempting to articulate a consistent message is a unique challenge science-based companies face.
During the initial attempts to communicate science to the masses, the strategy was to “amaze” and “delight” the public with scientific information (Gregory et al., 2008, p. 204). These attempts, however flashy, did not correlate with greater scientific decision making or positive attitudes toward the organizations communicating the science. Later, science organizations tried a new approach and started to engage in dialogue and public engagement at a more local, individual level. These attempts included holding town hall meetings and forums between experts and the public (Gregory et al., 2008). However, as science has become more privatized and corporate, national and international organizations have adopted communication channels that can span geographic boundaries and reach large audiences. Social networking sites (SNSs) are well suited for this.
Communicating With Consumers Through Twitter
Increasingly, SNSs have been productive spaces for companies to share information with consumers and engage them with their messages. On SNSs, engagement refers to interaction between an organization and its publics, including consumers, through message dissemination (Smith, 2013). Engagement occurs when messages are shared by companies to their publics in a quick and efficient manner (Briones et al., 2011) and publics provide real-time feedback to the companies based on the messages they received (Lovejoy et al., 2012). This does not necessarily mean two-way conversations are the norm but rather publics are engaging through liking, sharing, or commenting on company posts.
One SNS that has become popular for companies to use to engage with consumers is Twitter. The microblogging platform enables users to create and send tweets, which are short messages that are limited to 280 characters. On Twitter, users may post their own content, “follow” other users (including companies), repost (“retweet”) updates from other users, “like” tweets, and can reply directly to another’s posts. Twitter users tend to be more educated and have higher incomes than the general U.S. population (Wojcik & Hughes, 2019), which is also true of DTC genetic testing customers (Graf, 2019). According to a 2019 survey of social media users, people use Twitter for a variety of reasons, including consuming news (56%), viewing photos (42%) or videos (32%), and sharing content (32%; Statista, 2019). Likewise, users cite several reasons for following companies on Twitter, including seeking incentives such as discounts, seeking social interactions with the company, and seeking information (Kwon et al., 2014). Research also has found that almost 80% of Twitter users report mentioning brands in their tweets (Nagy & Midha, 2014) and that users are more likely to promote companies on Twitter if they feel the account is providing unique insights and engaging with followers (Read et al., 2019).
Not only is Twitter a platform used by companies to communicate with consumers but it is also the platform of choice for many science-related accounts. For instance, research shows that scientists often favor Twitter over other platforms (Collins et al., 2016). From the audience perspective, about half of all social media users report seeing science news on social media and about a quarter report following one or more account dedicated to science (Gottfried & Funk, 2017). It is unclear if there are scientists, media, organizations, or another type of account. However, it raises questions about how science organizations, and companies in particular, are using Twitter. Are they using the platform to disseminate product information like other for-profit entities tend to or are they sharing scientific information like some scientists do on Twitter?
Communication of Product Benefits
Despite the high rate of adoption, many consumers have concerns about DTC genetic testing companies or report not knowing much about them (AP-NORC, 2018). One strategy that a company may use to assuage apprehension or confusion is communicating the benefits of its products. Benefits are an external manifestation of the company’s values (Lai, 1995). Ultimately, companies may choose to communicate the benefits of a product in an attempt to match the values of their customers. A customer finds a product to be beneficial if they perceive, appreciate, or can use that product as a means to achieve their own personal values (Lai, 1995). According to Normann and Ramírez (1993) “a company’s offerings have values to the degree that customers can use them as inputs to leverage their own value creation” (p. 74).
Values are the beliefs a person holds that serve as a decision-making frame of reference (Hay & Gray, 1974). Values can serve as the guiding principle for people to evaluate other people, situations, or products (Schwartz, 1994). From a consumer product perspective, perceived value can occur at various stages of the purchase process (Woodruff, 1997); it can be generated without the product being purchased (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001).
Consumers’ perceptions of a product’s value and the benefits a product provides are linked, but are distinct concepts. How a consumer evaluates a product is based on the relationship between their personal values and their perceptions of the product’s benefits (Lai, 1995). Therefore, companies must communicate a product’s benefits effectively in order for consumers to evaluate the value of those products.
There are many ways to categorize the benefits of specific products. Sheth et al. (1991) categorized five product benefits that may influence consumer behavior. Functional benefits refer to a product’s basic performance; does it do what it is supposed to? Social benefits capture how the product makes the consumer feel in terms of social class or status. Emotional benefits are those that are acquired from a product’s capacity to arouse feelings or affective states. Epistemic benefits refer to a product’s capacity to satisfy curiosity, provide novelty, and/or to meet desire. Finally, conditional benefits are situational in which a product meets contextually based needs. However, these are generic benefits; that is, they are general and, when conceptualized, were not applied to a specific brand or product.
Several studies, though, have looked at benefits that relate to specific product types. In the food product industry, studies have examined the hedonic (e.g., pleasure, comfort) and utilitarian (e.g., energy, performance) benefits communicated on food packaging (Wang, 2017) and how nutrition claims are portrayed (Loebnitz & Grunert, 2018). Goldsmith et al. (2016) examined the communication of “self transcendent” (i.e., benefiting the environment) and economic benefits on consumer reactions toward “green” products.
Regarding DTC genetic testing, there appears to be one study that examined how companies communicate product benefits. Through a content analysis of 23 health-related DTC genetic-testing websites, Singleton et al. (2012) examined how these companies informed consumers about the benefits, risks, and limitations of DTC genetic testing. Results revealed that the DTC company websites highlighted the benefits of disease prevention, consumer education, and altruism most. With DTC genetic testing becoming more commonplace and social media being more conversational and engaging compared to websites, it is important to explore how DTC products are communicated through social media and if the benefits they highlight differ from what was discovered in the previous study. The benefits explored in the current study are (a) learning about genetic traits, (b) learning health information, (c) learning ancestral information, (d) connecting with relatives, and (e) general information discovery. These were developed based on previous research (Singleton et al., 2012), and by examining the specifics of 23andMe’s products and how they are communicated on their website. Having such concrete benefits made it possible to see how these benefits manifest in short social media posts. Thus, the following research questions are posed:
Method
To address the research questions, we conducted a content analysis of Twitter posts. The sample consisted of a stratified random sample of Twitter posts (N = 1,000) from 23andMe’s primary Twitter account (@23andMe). As of May 16, 2019, this account had 90,322 followers and had posted 17,436 original tweets since joining Twitter in May 2008. All posts between 2015 and 2018 from this account were collected using Crimson Hexagon, a social media analysis platform now owned by Brandwatch. After 2 years of offering only ancestral information, 23andMe received FDA approval for its health-related services in 2015 and relaunched its DTC efforts accordingly (Hayden, 2017). Thus, our sample begins in 2015. Once the posts were exported, all direct replies and retweets that included no modification by 23andMe were excluded. This decreased the dataset from 22,988 posts to 4,458. Next, a random sample of 250 posts per year were selected for inclusion in the study. Excel’s random number generator was used for sampling. The sample consisted of only text provided with each tweet, and did not include any visuals posted with the original tweets.
Variables
The unit of analysis for all variables was an individual Twitter post. For each of the posts, the following variables were recorded. Examples of these variables are included in Table 1. Each variable was coded separately in order to capture posts that both communicated science and shared product benefits.
Characteristics of 23andMe Tweets.
Company Related
This variable was coded as present or absent and assessed whether a tweet contained information about the company in any way. Specifically, whether posts included any company information, product information, customer stories or testimonials, job postings, or media coverage where the company is featured. This excluded posts that shared genetic research or news but did not mention that the company conducted the research.
Product Promotion
This variable was coded as present or absent and referred to anything explicitly selling the product to new customers. It included calls to action, asking followers to try a test, or sharing information about sales or promotions. Product information for existing customers, such as asking if they had used a specific feature, was not included.
Sharing Science
This variable had three categories: sharing no science information, sharing science information related to human genetics, and sharing science information related to any other topics. These could be news articles, research studies, or scientific facts. It included information or research from 23andMe or shared from other sources. These posts could include phrases such as “scientists discover . . .,” “research finds . . .,” and “study links . . .” or a statement about scientific findings without explicitly referring to a specific study. Although posts had to refer to science or research in some way, they did not have to detail scientific information in the tweet itself. The typical format was a headline and link to further information.
Product Benefits
For this coding category, there were five different benefits or product uses that were coded for. Posts were coded as absent if they did not contain any product benefit. The first benefit was genetic traits which referred to learning about general genetic traits not clearly related to health—for instance, finding out whether a customer is likely to have a widow’s peak. The second benefit was anything health related such as finding out whether a customer is predisposed to specific conditions. The third category was ancestry, which included anything related to finding out one’s ancestral roots. The fourth benefit was discovering relatives, which referred to opportunities for and instances of discovering specific relatives, finding family members, and reunion stories. The fifth benefit was general information discovery, which referred to learning or discovering information not pertaining to the other categories.
Follower Engagement Activities
In order to assess engagement, the study used Twitter analytics automatically included in the Crimson Hexagon dataset. Metrics included were retweets and replies.
Coding and Reliability
Two authors served as coders for the study. After developing the codebook, they went through several rounds of practice coding using tweets from 2019, which were not included in the study sample. After each round, they discussed any discrepancies and refined the codebook accordingly to make it more clear and detailed. Once reliability was met during the training rounds, the final sample of 1,000 tweets was split between the two coders. Of those, they both coded 150 posts for the final reliability. They reached intercoder reliability based on Krippendorff’s alpha for all variables: company related (α = .96; 98.0%), product promotion (α = .93; 99.3%), sharing science (α = .89; 92.7%), and product benefits (α = .89; 96.7%). Follower engagement activities were already included in the dataset produced by Crimson Hexagon and therefore not coded for.
Results
To address the first research question determining the proportion of 23andMe’s tweets that are company-related (Research Question 1a), directly promoting a product (Research Question 1b), sharing scientific information about human genetics/DNA (Research Question 1c), sharing general science information (Research Question 1d), or communicating about specific product benefits (Research Question 1e), the frequencies and percentages of 23andMe’s tweet characteristics were analyzed. Results from these descriptive analyses are displayed in Table 1. As Table 1 demonstrates, nearly half of all tweets in the sample were related to 23andMe, and nearly half of all tweets shared some type of science news—and a majority of the shared science news was specific to human genetics/DNA. Results indicated that the majority of tweets did not explicitly attempt to sell 23andMe products (89.3%, n = 893) nor did they communicate about product benefits (80.8%, n = 808).
To better understand how 23andMe’s Twitter messaging strategy may have changed over time, a series of chi-square analyses were conducted comparing the presence or absence of each message category by year. Figures 1 and 2 visually depict changes in these frequencies over time. Company-related tweets, χ2(3) = 52.86, p < .001, V = .23, and tweets promoting products, χ2(3) = 54.77, p < .001, V = .23, significantly increased over time. Analysis also revealed a significant effect related to 23andMe sharing science news over time, χ2(6) = 120.85, p < .001, V = .25. Overall, the number of 23andMe tweets sharing science news tended to decrease over time. Particularly, the sharing of science news unrelated to genetics consistently decreased over time, while genetics-related news tended to increase from 2015 to 2017, then drastically decreased in 2018. Similarly, a significant finding emerged related to the communication of product benefits over time, χ2(15) = 54.6, p < .001, V = .14. Overall, 23andMe tweets tended to communicate more product benefits over time. Specifically, benefits about general information discovery and ancestry tended to increase the most over time.
Changes in the frequency of company, product, and science news promotion over time.
Changes in the frequency of tweets communicating product benefits over time.
To address the second research question, to determine what types of posts tended to elicit the most follower engagement, we tested the influence of message characteristics on total user engagement (consisting of retweets and replies). Because the data violated the assumption of homogeneity of variances, results were examined using Welch’s test. Table 2 displays means and standard deviations for user engagement for each independent variable. A significant effect emerged when examining the influence of whether posts were company-related (Welch’s F test: F(1, 613.02) = 6.98, p = .008) and no significant difference was found based on whether posts were product-related (Welch’s F test: F(1, 110.41) = 3.49, p = .06) on user engagement. 1 As Table 2 demonstrates, company-related tweets yielded significantly more user engagement than those tweets without company information. Although tweets based on product promotion received more engagement than those that were not, this difference was not significant.
Mean Differences of User Engagement Based on Tweet Characteristics.
When examining the relationship between sharing science news and user engagement, analysis revealed a significant relationship, Welch’s F test: F(2, 538.95) = 12.52, p < .001. Table 2 shows that tweets sharing no science news yielded more user engagement; however, Games-Howell post hoc comparisons revealed significantly more engagement for tweets that did not share science news at all or that shared genetics-related news than for tweets sharing other types of science news. That is, statistically, there was no meaningful difference in user engagement between sharing no news at all or sharing genetics-related news, but both yielded significantly more user engagement than sharing other science news.
Examination of the influence of communicating product benefits on user engagement revealed a significant relationship, Welch’s F test: F(5, 94.04) = 3.83, p = .003. Means reported in Table 2 demonstrate that general discovery information tended to yield the most engagement, while communicating about genetic traits yielded the least engagement; however, Games-Howell posthoc comparisons revealed that the only statistically significant difference in engagement between product benefit categories was between communicating about genetic traits (M = 4.78; SD = 3.77) versus not communicating about any product benefits (M = 12.40; SD = 46.19), which tended to yield significantly more engagement.
Discussion
This study investigated 23andMe’s Twitter content from 2015 to 2018 to examine if and how the company engages in science communication and consumer relations. Although much of the Twitter content sampled was company related and shared either genetics-related or other science news, the overwhelming majority of content did not consist of product promotion nor did it communicate the benefits of 23andMe products. However, the results suggest that 23andMe’s Twitter activity changed over time, whether intentionally or not. According to results, 23andMe shared more news earlier during the timeframe examined (i.e., 2015) and the organization shared less news over time. Similarly, company-related and product-related content (including content about product benefits) tended to increase over time. These results suggest a change over time in 23andMe’s Twitter content from an information-sharing focus to a company- and product-promotion focus. Similarly, tweets containing no news (or specifically genetics-related news) tended to yield more user engagement, which could explain 23andMe’s overall decrease in news-sharing activity. One plausible explanation for the observed change in 23andMe’s Twitter strategy could be external factors influencing the industry, company, and product(s) over time. For instance, later in the time period observed, more people were familiar with the company and its products were more mainstream, and thus, the company could focus on product promotion rather than information dissemination. In fact, the number of people who purchased DTC genetic tests in 2018 was more than all previous purchases combined (Regalado, 2019). Regardless, the results here provide an interesting, cursory snapshot of 23andMe’s science-related consumer relations, and they offer many avenues for future research that may inform corporate communication and science communication theory and practice.
From a science communication perspective, results suggest that although the news-sharing function decreased over time, for-profit companies do share science information beyond what is immediately necessary to use a product. This can potentially have substantial consequences related to how consumers perceive scientific topics beyond their interactions with a company. As new technologies emerge related to gene editing and genetic modification, public perceptions of genetic science, and the risks and opportunities it presents, will impact policy and individual decision making.
This study adds to the product benefits literature by applying these concepts to DTC genetic testing. Most studies on product benefits focus on consumer products and marketing. Although DTC genetic testing is technically a product that is bought by consumers, the complexities of the product and the fact that scientific information is what is being sold offer a unique context that has not fully been researched previously. Through this study, additional benefits are introduced including those that are specific to the product like ancestry and genetic traits and those that are more generic, like information seeking. Previous studies have argued that products have benefits that can be applied regardless of industry type (e.g., Sheth et al., 1991). For the relatively new products sold by DTC genetic testing companies, specific benefits must be described and articulated for consumers to appreciate, which is consistent with previous work by Singleton et al. (2012).
One practical implication of this study is that sharing straight science news may not garner as much online engagement as other types of content. However, that is not to suggest that companies should not share scientific information. It could mean that scientific information should be packaged in ways that are clearly relevant to consumers, or relevant to the company’s industry as genetics-related research tended to receive more engagement than sharing other science news. Additionally, sharing scientific information may have effects that are not captured by the simple metrics of retweets and replies. For instance, the post with the highest engagement (668 retweets and 51 replies) was a giveaway promotion that explicitly asked followers to retweet the post to enter to win a free kit. This highlights the importance of Twitter’s architecture in reaching exponentially larger audiences through retweets and shows that higher engagement metrics do not necessarily reflect an organic desire to share the content. Furthermore, higher engagement rates on company-related posts may indicate these posts were treated differently by 23andMe social media managers in terms of strategically timing the posts or promoting them to specific audiences.
Another implication is that DTC genetic testing companies need to understand what their consumers value most when communicating about their products. As the results have indicated, DTC genetic testing companies should continue to communicate the benefits of the tests. Based on industry growth (Regalado, 2019), consumers are intrigued by what they can learn from these tests especially regarding learning about genetic traits and ancestry. Thus, DTC genetic-testing companies should continue to communicate about these benefits and less about selling the product. There is interest in these products among consumers, but they may be apprehensive about the testing itself or data security and communicating benefits may be one way to mitigate some of the reluctance.
Limitations and Future Research
This study is limited in that it examined one company on one platform and employed a deductive analysis of specific variables examined in previous research. It is possible that 23andMe communicates differently on other platforms. Likewise, these results cannot tell us how other DTC genetic-testing companies communicate. These limitations in scope offer potential avenues for future research. For instance, the current study focused on promotional communication and communicating product benefits from 23andMe, but risk communication strategies from DTC genetic testing companies is another important avenue for research. Future research may also examine multimedia content, such as images or videos, shared by these companies or the interactions between the companies and consumers. In this case, only one side of the conversation was explored and responses to individual followers were omitted. Most importantly, future research should study the effects of the content shared by DTC genetic testing companies.
Conclusion
Communicating about complex topics has always been a challenge for organizations. Consumers may get overwhelmed by the information communicated, and organizations struggle with articulating messages in a succinct and simple way. In the world of science, this especially has been a concern. Extant research has explored how science organizations communicate to their main constituents (e.g., Jarreau et al., 2019; Lee & VanDyke, 2015), but we have seen less focus on the science communication practices of for-profit companies, especially beyond communicating specifics of a product. Companies communicate about various topics related to health and the environment that can have substantial implications at the individual and society levels. The DTC genetic testing industry offers an opportunity for researchers to investigate the efforts of for-profit companies to communicate about science to a lay consumer audience. Our study strongly suggests that 23andMe communicates about genetic science beyond explaining its own products but that these efforts have declined over time. This study provides a basis for further research on DTC genetic-testing companies, their science communication, and the effects of that communication.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
