GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-10 > 1192824824


From: "H. B. Whitmore" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Response to genetic genealogists from authors of Oct.19th Science article
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:13:44 -0400
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071019121224.02154e80@nature.berkeley.edu>


Thank you, Kim, for your thoughtful response and for attaching Dr. Bonick's
response. I will certainly save them for use with prospective participants
who, after being reassured on the invasion of privacy front, try to use the
"it's all bunkum anyway" excuse.

Hal Whitmore


on 10/19/07 3:15 PM, Kimberly Tallbear at
wrote:

> Dear Genealogy-DNA-L subscribers,
>
> Please excuse the long post. I haven't been on list for a while, but
> as a co-author of yesterday's Science article, "The Science and
> Business of Genetic Ancestry Testing,"
> <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/318/5849/399?etoc>http://www.sc
> iencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/318/5849/399?etoc
> I wanted to post something more in-depth about our perspectives as
> authors on the public investment in genetic ancestry tests.
>
> Based on our collective field work experience in the fields of
> biological, medical, and cultural anthropology, science studies,
> bioethics, epidemiology, and law, we do not feel that most consumers
> are very educated about the limitations of the science behind the
> tests, and then what one should draw socially, culturally, and
> historically from the science. We originally had language in the
> article that noted the expertise of genetic genealogists such as some
> of you on this list. (My interactions on this listserv taught me well
> that there is a good deal of expertise here.) But with space
> constraints the editors cut that language. Our piece was designed to
> get the core message of our years of individual research in multiple
> disciplines out to the public. Our point is not to attack test users
> but to urge companies to do some things differently.
>
> Below is an email response from lead author, Deborah Bolnick, a
> biological anthropologist at the University of Texas, to a genetic
> genealogist who was unhappy with our article. I've omitted his
> original correspondence for confidentiality reasons.
>
> Sincerely,
> Kim TallBear
> President's Postdoctoral Fellow
> Science, Technology and Society Center
> and Environmental Science, Policy, and Management
> UC-Berkeley.
>
>
> On Thu, October 18, 2007 9:06 pm, Deborah Bolnick wrote:
>
> Thanks very much for the link to your thoughts on our Science
> article. It may not have made it into the newspaper stories that you saw,
> but I and my co-authors were not trying to critique the knowledge or
> contributions of expert genetic genealogists (or hobby-DNA researchers, as
> you call them). While you and others in this group may not be
> professional geneticists, you certainly know as much as many professional
> geneticists about this area of genetic research and are involved in
> important work that is doing a great deal to advance the field. I agree
> that collaborations between professional geneticists and expert genetic
> genealogists are indeed where we should be going, and I don't think any of
> my colleagues would actually avoid such co-operations due to the fear of
> being "scooped". Everyone I know is simply interested in doing whatever
> we can to advance our collective knowledge.
>
> While there are many individuals like you who have learned a great
> deal about population genetics, the available tests, and the associated
> population history, there are also a lot of individuals who take these
> tests without knowing much about them. Our Science article was focused on
> that group of people because we feel it is important for every test-taker
> to have a clear understanding of what DNA tests both can and cannot tell
> us. Indeed, the websites that you and other expert genetic genealogists
> maintain play a very important role in helping to educate other
> test-takers, and my colleagues and I often refer test-takers to the online
> community for help in understanding their test results. We originally had
> a short paragraph in the Science article to try to clarify this point --
> i.e., saying that many test-takers know a great deal about the tests and
> human population genetics, but we would like all testing companies and
> professional geneticists to do more to help educate those test-takers (or
> potential test-takers) who do not have that same knowledge.
> Unfortunately, that section was cut by the Science
> editor because of space constraints, and my comments to reporters on this
> topic may not have made it into their news articles.
>
> I hope this helps to explain my perspective, and I'm sorry that you
> perceived our article as being critical of you and other hobby-DNA
> researchers. That certainly was NOT our goal. Indeed, my perspective is
> the very opposite -- I would like to see everyone who takes these tests
> have as much knowledge as you . . .
>
> All the best,
> Deborah
>
> Deborah A. Bolnick, Ph.D.
> Department of Anthropology
> University of Texas at Austin
> 1 University Station C3200
> Austin, TX 78712
> Email:
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message


This thread: