GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-10 > 1192825344


From: David Faux <>
Subject: [DNA] Response to genetic genealogists from authors of Oct.19thScience article
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:22:24 -0700 (PDT)


Kim wrote: 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.
_________________________________________________________

Kim:

I am a dyed in the wool genetic genealogist, drawn into DNA ancestry testing from the very first days that this technology evolved to allow consumers to take tests - previously seen only in journals publishing population genetics papers.

The long and short of it is that I agree with you and the other authors. If one wishes to see examples of what the article is talking about one only has to drift over to the FTDNA Forum and pick up any of the threads on the DNA Print or DNA Tribes autosomal tests. One post about "Tribes scores" has seen almost 30,000 views and about 2,000 posts to the thread. If one wants to see naievity and over-interpretation it is there for all to see. Few posts (other than my own of course) caution people about taking their scores "literally" - people see 13% Native American with a red dot and a triangle and are, often, seemingly oblivious of the need to look at the confidence intervals which encircle the dot. More now seem aware that those from the Middle East, Greece and Pakistan will obtain a spurious say 20% Native American but they don't seem to realize that this problem applies to them even if they do not have heritage from that part of the world.

You are right, there is apparently (perhaps not so much on this List) a woeful lack of awareness of the limitations of these tests - which seems to be overawed by the desire to link the 13% NA to someplace in their genealogy (Procrustean fit or not). In my view the article did justice to the subject since there have been many other media sources of late that have touted the blessings of DNA testing. As I have said before, as long as you and your co-authors do not have a political agenda or axe to grind and are simply alerting folks to the dangers of ancestry testing - I am ok with this (although will probably be seen as something of a traitor by my fellow genetic genealogists).

Indeed people need to be aware of the downside of DNA testing (e.g., cherished views of ancestry or self may be impacted). We also need better tests, or the problem will just get worse as more people test and form communities to share results and support each other's interpretations.

I will continue to monitor these forums and toss out info about the science of this and that. Howeverm I freely admit to them that I have taken these tests and that they continue to arouse my curiosity. Hopefully others will continue to post messages to these forums, not to criticise anyone but posting as someone who has also taken these tests, offering perhaps a more balanced perspective so people start to see the many flies in the ointment. People have been very receptive to my posts when approached in this way.

David K. Faux.


This thread: