On Texas Christian University Week: Have you sent your DNA off to be tested?
Amina Zarrugh, associate professor of sociology, examines how these tests can lead to misunderstandings of race.
Faculty Bio:
Amina Zarrugh is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Texas Christian University. Her research focuses on politics and forced disappearance in North Africa as well as race and ethnicity in the U.S. Her work has appeared in journals such as Social Problems, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Critical Sociology, Middle East Critique, Teaching Sociology, and Contexts, among others. She completed her BA in sociology and government and her MA and PhD in sociology at the University of Texas at Austin.
Transcript:
Many of us have seen commercials for 23andMe or AncestryDNA, two leading companies for at-home DNA-based genealogical testing. With a small saliva sample taken at home, these companies promise to reveal long-lost ancestries. While millions in the United States have taken the companies up on this offer, we still know very little about how people interpret the tests and what they take away from them.
What we do know is that the tests have been valuable to communities long denied information about their ancestry, especially Black communities in the United States. As the industry reaches more people, including those who already have access to ancestral information, we asked: “How do people who take at-home DNA-based ancestry tests interpret their results?”
To answer this question, we analyzed over 400 YouTube videos of people reacting to their results. One key finding is that consumers often confuse ancestry with race or ethnicity, interpreting race as a biological category identifiable through DNA. Although they provide a saliva sample, many shift to using the language of “blood,” even labeling types such as “Native blood” or “Black blood.”
Because the tests use terms like “ethnicity estimates,” consumers are encouraged to think about identity in quantities and proportions. They may downplay or emphasize results based on what they view as “desirable” ancestries, reinforcing long-standing stereotypes.
These findings raise concerns about how misinterpretation of DNA-based technologies could revive racial science—the false belief that race is biological rather than a social construct. Given the deep ties between racial science and twentieth-century racism, our research underscores the importance of careful scientific and public understanding of these technologies.
Given how deeply intertwined racial science was with twentieth century projects of racism, our research emphasizes the importance of how scientists and the public understand DNA-based technologies.
