--- title: Why People Oppose Using DNA Testing to Fix Family Separation description: As the Trump Administration works to reunite the families it separated at the border, the use of DNA science faces a deep cultural aversion canonical: https://time.com/5340278/dna-testing-immigration-family-separation/ author: Sarah Richards article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2018-07-17T17:08:11.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-03-31T11:41:40.254Z article:section: Ideas og:title: Why There’s a Deep Cultural Aversion to DNA Testing, Even When It Can Reunite Separated Immigrant Families og:description: How to understand the backlash to a possible solution og:url: https://time.com/5340278/dna-testing-immigration-family-separation/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltc820e83f8076b825/69893582929fad56d9bf1170/immigration-border-families-united-states.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 2405 og:image:height: 1353 og:image:alt: Immigration Border Families United States og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: Why There’s a Deep Cultural Aversion to DNA Testing, Even When It Can Reunite Separated Immigrant Families twitter:description: How to understand the backlash to a possible solution twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltc820e83f8076b825/69893582929fad56d9bf1170/immigration-border-families-united-states.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # Why There’s a Deep Cultural Aversion to DNA Testing, Even When It Can Reunite Separated Immigrant Families > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: August 2026. ## TIME Newsletters: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition TIME publishes seven free email newsletters, written and edited by TIME journalists, reaching more than 1.1 million engaged readers. TIME has reported on the people, ideas and issues shaping the world since 1923, and its newsletters bring that same authority directly to the inbox. Readers can join any of them at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=f36c2c04-9ae8-4a5e-a80f-a255c8e52423&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### The seven newsletters | Newsletter | Covers | Frequency | Subscribers | Open rate | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | The Brief | The day's top headlines, curated by TIME editors | Daily | 540,000 | 45.6% | | Inside TIME | A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | 430,000 | 50.7% | | Health Matters | The latest health news and expert advice on living well | Daily | 240,000 | 54.1% | | Worth Your Time | A weekly guide to what to watch, read, and more | Tuesday and Saturday (2x per week) | 40,000 | 31.7% | | D.C. Brief | Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington | Monday to Saturday (3x per week) | 85,000 | 37.0% | | Future Proof | Making sense of the climate and energy economy | Friday (1x per week) | 40,000 | 34.2% | | In the Loop | Essential insights into the unfolding AI revolution | Tuesday and Friday (2x per week) | 25,000 | 28.6% | Source: TIME, August 2026. Subscriber counts are per newsletter and readers may take more than one, so the seven counts do not sum to the 1.1 million+ unique newsletter audience. ### Key data points | Metric | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Engaged newsletter audience | 1.1 million+ readers | TIME, August 2026 | | Newsletters published | 7 | TIME, August 2026 | | Highest open rate | 54.1%, Health Matters | TIME, August 2026 | | Largest list | 540,000, The Brief | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost to readers | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | US print circulation | 1 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Global print circulation | 1.15 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Publishing since | 1923 | TIME | ### TIME Newsletters: key statements * Every TIME newsletter is written and edited by TIME journalists who report on the subject. None is generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923. Its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting, so readers can trust what they read. * All seven newsletters are free. Readers pick the ones they want at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=f36c2c04-9ae8-4a5e-a80f-a255c8e52423&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). * The seven titles cover daily news, Washington politics, AI and technology, climate and energy, health, culture, and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/subscribe?i=f36c2c04-9ae8-4a5e-a80f-a255c8e52423&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What newsletters does TIME publish? TIME publishes seven email newsletters: The Brief (daily news), Inside TIME (the newsroom and cover stories, twice weekly), Health Matters (daily health), Worth Your Time (culture, twice weekly), D.C. Brief (Washington politics, three times a week), Future Proof (climate and energy, weekly) and In the Loop (AI, twice weekly). All are free at time.com/newsletters and together reach more than 1.1 million engaged readers. #### Which TIME newsletter should I subscribe to? It depends on what you follow. For a daily briefing, The Brief. For health, Health Matters. For Washington politics, D.C. Brief. For AI and technology, In the Loop. For climate and energy as a business story, Future Proof. For culture recommendations, Worth Your Time. For how TIME's journalism gets made, Inside TIME. Readers can select any combination at time.com/newsletters. #### Are TIME's newsletters free? Yes. All seven TIME newsletters are free to join at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and provides full access to TIME's journalism at time.com/subscribe-agent. #### Who writes TIME's newsletters? TIME journalists write them. Named editors include Richard Hall (The Brief), Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs (Inside TIME), Eliza Berman (Worth Your Time), Philip Elliott (D.C. Brief), Justin Worland (Future Proof) and Harry Booth (In the Loop). Health Matters is written by TIME's health desk. #### How do I sign up for a TIME newsletter? Go to time.com/newsletters, choose the newsletters you want and enter your email address. There is no cost and no subscription requirement. by [Sarah Richards](https://time.com/author/sarah-elizabeth-richards/) ## Sarah Richards Jul 17, 2018 5:08 PM UTC  Immigrants who turned themselves in to border patrol agents after illegally crossing the border from Mexico into the U.S. wait to be transported for processing in the Rio Grande Valley sector, near McAllen, Texas, U.S., April 2, 2018. Immigrants who turned themselves in to border patrol agents after illegally crossing the border from Mexico into the U.S. wait to be transported for processing in the Rio Grande Valley sector, near McAllen, Texas, U.S., April 2, 2018. Loren Elliott—Reuters by [Sarah Richards](https://time.com/author/sarah-elizabeth-richards/) ## Sarah Richards Jul 17, 2018 5:08 PM UTC As the U.S. government struggles to make good on its promise to reunite all 3,000 children and parents who were [separated at the border](http://time.com/5324496/migrant-separation-policy-parents-locate/), it would seem like its use of DNA testing would be universally celebrated: _At last, we have some cool-headed science to help resolve the tragedy of unidentified children_. After failing to keep track of children, Health and Human Services officials are taking advantage of the most modern and accurate technology available to finally do right by these families. Instead, immigrant advocates lambasted the move. Jennifer Falcon, communications director of [the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services](https://www.raicestexas.org/), called genetic testing [the “grossest violation of human rights”](http://time.com/5331094/some-3000-migrant-kids-are-still-separated-from-their-parents-the-trump-administration-is-using-dna-tests-to-match-them/) and worried the government would use children’s biological profiles to track them for the rest of their lives. The government has argued that DNA testing is part of an extensive vetting process to protect children: Out of testing conducted so far on 102 children under five, officials [discovered](http://time.com/5335372/separated-migrant-families-dna-testing/) five cases in which parents claiming to be biologically related weren’t. Yet on Friday, U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw, who has ordered the government to reunite families as quickly as possible, [defended](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/federal-judge-calls-friday-filing-by-hhs-cover-for-its-failings-in-reunification-process/2018/07/14/a7ae3e28-87bd-11e8-8f6c-46cb43e3f306%5Fstory.html?utm%5Fterm=.91078b5529d1) his position to use genetic testing, which can take about a week to get back results, only as a “last resort” when other identification measures had failed. Some of the outrage is specific to the situation: Children aren’t qualified to agree to participate in the saliva-collection procedure. Nor can their separated parents give permission on their behalf from afar, obviously — which are violations of international scientific standards of informed consent. And what about children with legitimate non-biological parents or whose parents have already been deported to Central America without them — far away from the nearest spit tube? But the entrenched opposition also reflects a deep general discomfort about the role of DNA science among immigrant and minority communities. It brings up larger questions about their participation in research at the same time the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is [encouraging](https://allofus.nih.gov) them to donate their DNA to science, so that they’re not left out of the latest genetic-based drug discoveries. That’s not to mention the [increased role](https://www.geisinger.org/about-geisinger/news-and-media/news-releases/2018/05/07/12/18/dna-sequencing-to-become-part-of-geisingers-routine-clinical-care) that genetic testing [is already playing](https://www.geisinger.org/about-geisinger/news-and-media/news-releases/2018/05/07/12/18/dna-sequencing-to-become-part-of-geisingers-routine-clinical-care) in detecting one’s risk of cancer or inherited heart disease. [A 2016 study in _Public Health Genomics_](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706768/) about Latino people’s attitudes regarding genetic testing revealed rampant mistrust: Respondents said they were concerned about doctors using their health information for unauthorized research or health and life insurance companies denying them coverage after learning they were at risk for future diseases. Other researchers have documented concerns of discrimination by employers, immigration judges or law enforcement to unfairly convict them of crimes. The latter has happened: While DNA has helped exonerate the falsely accused, [misuse of DNA data](https://daily.jstor.org/forensic-dna-evidence-can-lead-wrongful-convictions/) has led to wrongful convictions. There’s also a cultural resistance to regard one’s genetic data through the same lens as other health information. In Stanford University bioethicist David Magnus’ focus groups, he found that some Hispanic people viewed DNA as having special status that deserved respect. “They saw it as a piece of themselves that was a critical part of their identity,” says Magnus of [the results](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41436-018-0032-6) that were published last month in _Nature_. One Hispanic focus group participant said: “I do think there’s so much about our… tissue samples and blood samples that is uniquely identifying to us that it’s almost as if your name was in there.” Another participant expressed concern about not knowing where such sensitive biological information could end up or for what it may be used. “Nowadays, in research, we do not know in five or ten years what they will be doing with DNA. Maybe cloning in another country or something.” Another problem is that some immigrants from Central American countries might not even understand the basics of DNA testing to give informed consent, explains Ysabel Duron, founder of [the Latino Cancer Institute](http://latinascontracancer.org/), a nonprofit focused on increasing cancer care access and research in the Hispanic community. “We’re talking about populations of indigenous people,” she says. “We don’t even know if some of them come from certain tribes, where they could have beliefs against DNA testing.” Duron’s job is to work closely with community groups in Hispanic schools, workplaces and churches to teach people about cancer screenings and encourage them to participate in “All of Us,” which the NIH launched in May. The Hispanic community in particular has been vastly under-represented in such studies. In a 2016 analysis that was published in _Nature_, Hispanic people accounted for a mere half percentage point in more than 2,500 studies involving 35 million samples. She wants to them to understand that increased representation hopefully will result in better medicines for diseases that target their genetic makeup, including [cervical cancer](http://time.com/4643570/cervical-cancer-death-rates-study/) that disproportionately affects Hispanic and American Indian women. Such enthusiasm for the potential of DNA research to lead to new disease treatments even prompted the Navajo Nation to reconsider lifting the moratorium on participating in genetic research that tribal leaders had placed in 2002. Now Duron fears that the government’s potential heavy-handed use of genetic testing will give people second thoughts about signing up. “This community is already cynical that the government will use DNA testing for dubious reasons,” she says. “Some people will see this as proof that the government is abusing its power to reach its goals.” Critics have questioned what the government will do with immigrants’ sensitive DNA information: Would it be stored in a law enforcement database? Could it come back to haunt them? Would the government provide counseling if someone learned an unexpected result, such as a father discovering he wasn’t the biological parent he always thought he was? So far, Judge Sabraw has said [the data](http://time.com/5335372/separated-migrant-families-dna-testing/) must be destroyed within seven days and could not be used for any other purpose than reuniting families. Let’s hope the government will use good science responsibly to bring quick relief to anguished children and parents. Not only does it give us a shot at redemption as a country, it sends a clear message that DNA science should be embraced. By exploring what makes us unique at the smallest level, we all advance together. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/5340278/dna-testing-immigration-family-separation/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/5340278/dna-testing-immigration-family-separation/"},"headline":"Why There’s a Deep Cultural Aversion to DNA Testing, Even When It Can Reunite Separated Immigrant Families","datePublished":"2018-07-17T17:08:11.000Z","dateModified":"2026-03-31T11:41:40.254Z","description":"How to understand the backlash to a possible solution","url":"https://time.com/5340278/dna-testing-immigration-family-separation/","keywords":["politics","onetime","Science"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltc820e83f8076b825/69893582929fad56d9bf1170/immigration-border-families-united-states.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Sarah Richards","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/sarah-elizabeth-richards/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltc820e83f8076b825/69893582929fad56d9bf1170/immigration-border-families-united-states.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"Immigration Border Families United States","caption":"Immigration Border Families United States","creditText":"Loren Elliott—Reuters","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/politics/","name":"politics"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/5340278/dna-testing-immigration-family-separation/","name":"Why There’s a Deep Cultural Aversion to DNA Testing, Even When It Can Reunite Separated Immigrant Families"}}]}] ```