GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives
Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-10 > 1192850656
From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] Response to genetic genealogists from authorsof Oct. 19th Science article
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:24:16 -0400 (EDT)
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20071019121224.02154e80@nature.berkeley.edu><E82B04D7-6A1E-4444-AD1B-6AB3695E05D0@utoronto.ca><REME20071019171153@alum.mit.edu><8AD56379-1ECC-43A1-A303-E5DB156967F7@utoronto.ca>
In-Reply-To: <8AD56379-1ECC-43A1-A303-E5DB156967F7@utoronto.ca> (message fromGabriela Novak on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:24:15 -0400)
Gabriela wrote:
> But isn't this why people want to do the testing in the first place?
> To confirm their research?
Sometimes. However, the testing often involves people who get dragged
into the project to test other people's research. They have been told
by the family researcher that they are descended from some particular
admirable ancestor, and they believe it to be true. The DNA testing,
to them, is merely a way of proving something they already feel to be
established. Indeed, most of the time these deeply-believed
genealogies turn out to be confirmed anyway. But sometimes not.
> Heritage is not in your genes, it is by definition the environment
> you grew up with and/or identify with.
No, heritage is what you inherit. By definition. The environment
is part of it, but the feeling of kinship is not entirely rational
anyhow. The definitions of "us" vs "them" take in all kinds of
inclusive and exclusive circles. Suffice it to say that DNA
testing can and *does* lead sometimes to a great personal shock.
You can argue that people should be prepared for whatever results
come out, but how many people have *you* advised not to take a
DNA test for such reasons?
John Chandler
This thread:
| Re: [DNA] Response to genetic genealogists from authorsof Oct. 19th Science article by (John Chandler) |