GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-04 > 1145650645


From: "Andrew and Inge" <>
Subject: DNA Project Conscription
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 22:17:25 +0200


Dear Ken

In good humour let me ask the obvious question.

Assume the existance of a person who makes a big distinction between the
level of publicity in SMGF from the level of privacy in a typical DNA
project results table or ysearch. You know the kind of thing: surname of
furthest paternal ancestor, maybe a place for that ancestor, and then a
series of numbers.

Obviously such a person will be worried by this difference because they
don't want people, i.e. individuals they don't know, looking UNUSUALLY
closely at their DNA results than the SMGF database already encourages.

It is a stretch to imagine such a thing, but I certainly can't imagine any
scenario in which such a person would not be disturbed by a member from the
public making UNUSUALLY detailed haplogroup and place of origin studies with
that data.

So why don't you stop your research now? Surely you have not asked all those
poor SMGF volunteers for permission to work out whether their ancient
ancestors were Vikings or Frisians.

: )

Best Regards
Andrew

====
From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA Project Conscription
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:01:16 -0600
References: <000201c66492$e7a1a0d0$>

Since my name got dragged into this discussion, I must point out that the
data I collect is explicitly that of haplotype populations, not individual
haplotypes which are identified by code number or otherwise as belonging to
contemporary or historic persons. In fact I never look at full individual
haplotypes, as my methodology uses short root haplotype identifiers and
either sums over all states of the unconstrained markers or determines the
population's distributions on those free markers.

For what it is worth, I would never consider extracting and publishing
individual haplotypes of anyone, including my cousins, without their
permission. I think it is an ethical rather than legal issue. Yes, you can
probably argue that as soon as anyone permitted their haplotype to be in any
collection, publically accessed, with its identity intact, they have "given"
their information to the public, but there are levels of exposure of their
information, and I don't think one should move their information into a
place of increased exposure and ease of access without their OK.


This thread: