Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-08 > 1155254676

From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] From 34/37 to 42/67
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:04:36 -0300
References: <BAY111-F294AB8A9FFEAFF909CF624F14A0@phx.gbl>

No this is not what I am saying. If this was an error
then it raises some issues but not as serious if the
probability of error is low. In the case of error we
are likely talking about a human element that can be
addressed and if corrected one gets a useful result.
People expect a reasonable degree of error.

On the otherhand, if the result is correct and you can
get a person going from a 34/27 to a 42/67 result with
regularity then there is a more serious issue at hand.
This would be the misrepresentation of the utility of
this technology for genealogical purposes. If the experts
knew this would occur with regularity and marketed it
otherwise then there could be serious legal consequences.

With regards to your medical analogy I see it this way.
A surgeon was operating and a very loud bang startled him
into cutting something he should not have. This is reasonable
error - albeit not for the patient - in that unusual circumstances
were at play. The flip side would be if the surgeon never went
to medical school in the first place. This is misrepresentation
and there are consequences.

I can and have been negative many times. I don't think I
am here. Very ticked would be more appropriate if this
result is something we should regulary expect.


----- Original Message -----
From: "William Hurst" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] From 34/37 to 42/67

> Peter wrote:
> Let me get this straight. You are saying that if the 42/67 result is due
> to an error it should be corrected. I don't think anybody would disagree.
> However, you seem to think it's worse if the result is correct! And you
> expect lawsuits to results from accurate results. Wow, I would never have
> thought of that. I guess if my cholesterol is too high I can sue my
> doctor. And people will quit going to doctors too. Wow again. Or maybe you
> are just being negative. Have you been negative before?
> Bill Hurst
>>No this is not to be expected! This was the argument with the
>>12 marker testing and the pitch for the higher resolution tests was
>>that this would be resolved. A 34/37 to 42/67 change is "not
>>acceptable" for a commercial product offering. At no point was
>>it marketed that this sort of thing could happen. If it turns out that it
>>can with any significant regularity I can assure you that you will see
>>lawsuits. I actually think I raised this whole issue a couple of years
>>ago and I was convinced here it could not happen.
>>All in all, I can assure you that this whole field will quickly dry up in
>>terms of genealogical purposes if this is not an error. There is just no
>>way you can interpret the results with any certainty. As I said, this is
>>and I hope it is addressed quickly as this news will spread like fire.
>>Just this
>>past week at least one of the genealogy lists had a debate on DNA testing
>>being a waste. This will certainly be taken as fodder for one side.
>>Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
>>last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:
> ==============================
> Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more.
>'s United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more:

This thread: