GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-10 > 1192832591


From: "Sharon Bryant" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Response to genetic genealogists from authors ofOct. 19thScience article
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:23:11 -0400
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20071019121224.02154e80@nature.berkeley.edu><E82B04D7-6A1E-4444-AD1B-6AB3695E05D0@utoronto.ca><REME20071019171153@alum.mit.edu>


I have to agree with John. Very early on I had been in the process of
"beating the bushes" for participants when I received an email which
basically said you don't want to do this. You will stir up too much that has
been swept under the rug.

My response was that if there was any question in their mind about who was
whose father then I did not expect them to test. I wouldn't know about any
of them but since they were such a prolific group I was pretty sure that it
wouldn't make any difference to the project.

My 2 cents worth (oh, we have 45 members now - not a lot I understand, but
we have participants from England, Scotland, Ireland, and a new one from
South Africa and one from Madagascar.)

Do I miss the others? No, not necessarily.

Sharon Bryant
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Chandler" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Response to genetic genealogists from authors ofOct. 19th
Science article


> Gabriela wrote:
>> From the article:
>>
>> "Test-takers may reshape their personal identities, and they may
>> suffer emotional distress if test results are unexpected or
>> undesired" - I have yet to see any evidence of that, this is fear
>> mongering.
>
> Actually, this is true, and I have seen it happen. A large amount
> of genealogy is done cooperatively by groups sharing a common
> ancestor. Under these conditions, the members of a group have a
> big investment in the shared heritage, and the discovery that one
> or more members do not really share that heritage can shake the
> group as well as re-orient the affected members. If it were simply
> a matter of a previously unsuspected false paternity, the cultural
> and familial heritage would still be shared, but the fact is that
> genetic disproofs often signify that the supposed connection was
> based on a genealogical blunder all along.
>
> John Chandler
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: