GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-10 > 1191911789


From: marianne dillow <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] 60 Minutes Genetic Genealogy Segment
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 23:36:29 -0700 (PDT)


I am giving Dick the benefit of the doubt but the "tea leaf remark" appeared to be offensive when it first appeared on the list and a personal email to me off list. I am ready to move on. Were all entitled to our opinions as to the 60 Minute story Leslie Stahl did and I for one will voice my opinion on subject matters when I feel like I want to ,as others will too. My opinion as to 60 Minutes remains as I posted it.

Marianne Dillow

marianne dillow <> wrote:
Dick,
The vocal part was misunderstood but we do agree we need more people to test. Anne and I have been posting a lot on FGS. Anne is doing a report for me and I am either rare or not enough people have tested for me to have hardly any matches. I think there are probably more than me in that same boat. But we all are entitled to our opinion on 60 minutes, that's the American way. It goes both ways. Just another one of the many discussions on the list. Give it another day and this discussion will run it's course and be part of the past. I stated my opinion and I am ready to move on as others have done the same and are moving on too.

Best Regards,
Marianne


RICHARD KENYON <> wrote:
Dangers?
I don't recall any mention by 60 Minutes of the dangers that many fear about DNA testing: identity theft, inability to obtain insurance due to genetic conditions, false identification with the DNA of criminals, "big brother" government intrusion, NPEs, finding errors in prior genealogical research, etc. I think 60 Minutes was pointing out that some have unrealistic expectations--and that's important.
When I say that I thought the reporting was balanced, I thought the meaning would be quite clear: Some clients are delighted with the results of their DNA tests while some are not. That's all.
If one reads carefully my initial statement, while really off-topic, I referred to "some vocal ....", not all. Judging from the voluminous content of this list, I'm sure it must be clear to many that often those who respond the most frequently are the least qualified to give an intelligent response.
When some one says "we need more FGS data" that's saying "we need a much larger sample size." I'm glad there's agreement on that! We also need more STRs and SNPs, I'd say by several orders of magnitude.

Richard R. Kenyon ("Dick")
----- Original Message -----
From: marianne dillow
To:
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] 60 Minutes Genetic Genealogy Segment


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



This thread: