Formula 1's alleged 'DNA' has been invoked continually in arguments about the future direction of grand prix racing in recent times. But it's an argument so imprecise as to be close to pointless; a catch-all, go-to phrase that can be used to justify almost any position.
What the DNA argument is generally used for is an argument against change. It's a lazy way to support a reactionary, very conservative approach to directions in which grand prix racing should or should not evolve. That doesn't mean change is always good, but the premise that it is always bad is a dangerous mindset.
The word 'evolve' is chosen deliberately above. At its most simplistic level, DNA is the genetic coding of living beings; mutations in DNA is, in harness with natural selection, at the heart of evolution. If DNA was unchanging, human beings certainly would not be around today - either making grand prix cars or arguing about what they should or shouldn't be.