The Grand Unboxing of America’s DNA Bank
In a courtroom drama that could rival the most binge‑worthy reality shows, a bankruptcy judge is now tasked with deciding whether the massive genetic treasure trove of 23andMe should go to its co‑founder, Anne Wojcicki, and the nonprofit TTAM Research Institute.
Why It Matters
- These aren’t just lab notes—think 15 million American DNA samples.
- The data could unlock answers to medical mysteries—and it’s up for grabs.
- A lawsuit, cash‑flow woes, and under‑the‑table deals are all part of the plot.
Judge Walsh’s Midnight Oil
Judge Brian C. Walsh of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri spent hours listening to heated speeches from both sides. Think of it as a debate club meets stock exchange—just with higher stakes.
Wojcicki and TTAM’s Winning Move
Earlier this month, Anne Wojcicki and TTAM rose to the occasion in an auction that felt more like an epic scavenger hunt. They outbid rival biotech titan Regeneron for the vast array of genetic data, promising to keep the info in the hands of those who could use it for good.
What’s Next?
The court’s decision, anticipated for Friday, will decide whether this invaluable genetic gold will be passed on, put back into research labs, or maybe—just maybe—revamped into the next big medical breakthrough.
When a DNA Startup Comes With a Big Scramble
Picture this: a dead‑stock genetics firm gets a fresh lease on life, but the transfer of its crystal‑clear data isn’t exactly a walk‑in park. Attorneys on the startup’s side show the deal is a legal safety net, while state regulators feel it’s a wall‑bouncing dodge.
What the Lawyers Is Saying
- Bankruptcy‑friendly.
- Legal guardrails: two‑year free identity‑theft monitoring, a privacy board, and a hard stop on third‑party data sharing.
- No shred of liquidating risk (the kind that can make your equity vanish).
Why State Attorneys Are Not Buying It
- California says the deal is a straight‑up violation of its Consumer Privacy Act, which demands that users can actually opt‑out of data sharing.
- Texas complains the ownership transition feels more like a corporate makeover than a clean asset sale, and again, stresses the need for explicit consent.
Judge Walsh Turns the Tables
Last Wednesday, Texas asked for a temporary stop on the sale – a brief pause in the transaction. Judge Walsh said we’d need bruised hands and a high‑stakes injury to grant that, but Texas didn’t have the proof. So, no pause.
Will TTAM Keep Shaking Hands With Pharma?
One lingering thought: does the TTAM Research Institute still swoop in on the same research gigs with pharma and universities it did before?
Bottom Line
It’s a legal drama with high‑stakes privacy, a dash of corporate law, and the constant temptation to sweeten the deal with a little humor. Will the new owner keep the inevitable “tongue‑and‑ear” collaborations alive? Stay tuned—this plot is far from over.