Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118247203

From: Robert Stafford <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Non-Participation in Genographic Project
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>

David L.

It is unfortunate that we have to spend so much time correcting responders who fail to read original posts carefully. It is better to break out each sentence before responding. If something is unclear, it is much easier to ask than to write a long and irrelevant discourse.

David L. wrote:
<<I suggest Mr. Stafford work on his reading comprehension -- the reply clearly indicates that the project hopes to answer questions of both deep and recent ancestry.>>

I think you need to work on yours. The subject matter of the reply (and my post) is the public participation data. There are only oblique references to indigenous data and they are only to contrast their use with that of the public data.

You can't throw in the indigenous data to refute what I said. No one has ever raised a question about its use in the study of ancient migrations. Are you positing a use for the public data in studying ancient migrations? How do you think it will be used to answer questions about ancient migrations? Be specific.

<<As for the ludicrous allegations that the project is just a fund-raiser--and those allegations are ludicrous>>

Again my post was about the public part. No one has ever suggested that the overall project was a fund raiser. However, many of us think the public participation was designed for that purpose. There is nothing wrong with that per se. However, a person's view on the matter would affect his decisions on testing and/or data transfer vs. a monetary contribution.

However, they do plan to use some moneys for infrastructure in poorer countries. I think this may be on the NGS site or in a statement by Wells.

<<How many of you who question the use of the data are scientists?>>

Are you? You sound more like an undergraduate. I don't claim to be a scientist, because I don't currently work as one. However, I have had excellent scientific training (Ph.D., organic chemistry, at a top university under a Nobel Prize winner). Thus, I can look at these matters from a general scientific perspective. However, I make no claims to any expertise on particular matters in genetics (or even chemistry, now.)

<<I just spent more than $300 replacing lost ecological field equipment so that I can do more
fieldwork this summer>>

What is the relevance?

<<If anyone continues to insist that this project has a profit motive, I'll have to check news reports to see if they have been mentioned in any alien-abduction cases.>>

Since you only imagined people did, I think we had better be looking for your name.

Bob Stafford

This thread: