GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-10 > 1128154206


From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] More S21 Results
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 01:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <00ae01c5c64a$b2964800$c10358db@Marsh>


John:

I have re-read and re-read the agreement and there does not seem to be anything (other than time) that would preclude me from pruning my Excel file to include just the R1bers - there is no personal information at all, only what is noted on our website. I work 18 hours a day but still cannot find time to enter all the data (it is a huge job), but will obtain data input assistance from a family member so the data backlog does not mirror the backlog being cleared by the lab. One thing I don't include in our database is the Ysearch number since this would identify a specific individual. Perhaps there are ways around this but not everyone posts to the List.

Anyway, a lot to think about, and much to do - but with little grandson arriving on our doorstep tomorrow it would be nice to break away from the computer for a while to be able to go to the beach and play with him - the regular stuff other people do :-)

David Faux.

Alister John Marsh <> wrote:
Hi David,

Personally, I think if John McEwan was acting as an "honorary research
consultant for EA", and you linked to his results from your web site, it
would be within the spirit of your agreement with participants. (If John
was working for free, he would be on the same salary as the managing
director! You are not disqualifed from publishing the data just because you
don't work for wages.)

If he tabulated the data, and emailed it to you, you could "first" publish
the raw data to the net an an appendage to the S21 page of your web site,
which would be completely in accordance with your agreement with persons
tested. Once it was "first" published that way, it would be public
knowledge, then John could publish to his own web site, and play analysis
games etc.

I think the persons S21 positive (and negative) would be all keen to benefit
from John's analysis. This analysis adds value to their results. From the
analysis point of view, knowing the negative haplotypes is just as important
as knowing the positive haplotypes.

If you still are nervous, you could give John access to the full data, but
just allow him to publish statistical summaries of the data, eg "60% have
modal values of a,b,c,d, at markers w,x,y,z.". But full haplotypes are what
the punters want!

Regards,
John.


This thread: