GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-10 > 1193109797


From: "Dave Mountain" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Response to genetic genealogists from authors of Oct.19thScience article
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:23:17 -0400
In-Reply-To: <mailman.4027.1193099222.16856.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>


In all fairness to the journal Science, the Bolnick et al. article should be
considered to be the scientific equivalent of an op-ed piece, hence its
heading "Policy Forum." In the world of science, it is common practice for
a group of scientists who are in agreement on some policy issue to co-author
such op-ed pieces. These are statements of opinion and are not treated as
statements of fact.

As someone who is a biomedical scientist but who also enjoys the pursuit of
conventional and genetic genealogy, I think it is a shame that many
academics don't understand what motivates us to spend hours trying to solve
the puzzles of our family's past or the care with which experienced
genealogists examine their evidence. At the same time, some of the
marketing by DNA companies might mislead s naive customer and some of the
reporting about genetic genealogy, especially the deep ancestry component,
may lead to some unreasonable expectations among the general public.

All is not lost, however. There are some academics, myself included, who are
interested in bridging the gap between those interested in family history
and those interested in more academic issues. My sister, a historical
geographer, and I have written a chapter on Genetics, genealogy and
geography for a book entitled "Geography and Genealogy" that will be
published in January which is aimed at social scientists and geographers.
Many of the postings on this and similar lists provided insights that we
incorporated into our chapter (don't worry, we didn't quote anyone).

We specifically focused on how DNA research encourages family historians to
rethink basic geographic concepts like ethnicity, migration, diffusion, and
spatial correlation, all topics that are discussed extensively on this list.
The book is specifically targeted at the academic community so I'm not
trying to plug the book but rather make the case that there are people on
the academic side who see significant potential for positive interactions
between the genealogical and academic communities.

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:05:22 -0400
From: Gabriela Novak <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Response to genetic genealogists from authors of
Oct.19thScience article
To:
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

I couldn't agree more.
One would expect Science to have higher standards than that. The
politics behind this must really be interesting.
G.

On 22-Oct-07, at 12:36 PM, Jerry Lobdill wrote:

> I agree, Gabriela. I have now read the article, thanks to a couple
> of list subscribers who each kindly sent me a copy. This article
> contains primarily complaints about genetic ancestry testing that are
> not based on science or statistics. It contains about 1600 words, and
> required 14 authors to create, few of whom seem to have credentials
> specifically indicating experience in the area of genetic
> genealogy. Two of the authors are lawyers, and the tenor of the
> article seems to be that there may be fraud associated with genetic
> ancestry testing.
>
> I wonder how the authors were selected, why so many were needed to
> create such a non-scientific paper, and why lawyers were
> included. I wonder if any of the authors are genealogists (amateur
> or professional).
>
> Jerry Lobdill
>






This thread: