GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-10 > 1191891575


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] 60 Minutes Genetic Genealogy Segment
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 20:59:35 EDT



In a message dated 10/8/2007 6:15:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
writes:

Maybe I'm a natural-born skeptic, but I compare some of the more vocal
members on this list as nothing much more that updated versions of old-fashioned
gypsy tea leaf readers. Too much is being extrapolated from badly biased small
samples.



OK I am pretty vocal, so I will assume I am included in this comment! :)
However, I think it is unreasonable to compare me to a "gypsy tea leaf reader,"
or really to accuse me of "extrapolating." Unless my constant cries of "we
don't have enough FGS data to be able to tell what patterns, if any, exist"
is an "extrapolation from badly biased small samples!" My impetus, for those
who have missed it, is not in offering "extrapolations" but in saying "the
available data hints at, or suggests, which we cannot know with the data we
have, let's get more data!" I think that's true of most, if not all, of the
people on this list who are vocal and looking at, or for, patterns.

People who know nothing about genetic genealogy -- or those who have heard
the negative rumors about misuse or abuse of DNA -- these are the folks who are
likely to find the 60 Minutes report reinforcing their beliefs about its
dangers. I always try to view programs on genetic genealogy from THEIR eyes
rather than my own. My objections are based on the notion that those of us
already in the genetic genealogy community don't really NEED to have that put on
the airwaves without a rebuttal explaining how useful DNA can be and
explaining that the uncertainty isn't a "scam" but something that can be accounted
for and worked with in interpreting results.

It was not the simple fact of presenting that there is uncertainty that made
me unhappy with the show. It was leaving completely answerable implications
unanswered (such as the "conflicting" results from the different companies
on the mtDNA.) If that's your definition of "balanced" reporting, then yes,
it was balanced. It's not mine.

Anne



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

This thread: