GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives
Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-01 > 1199742434
From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Fatherhood Tied to Higher Prostate Cancer Risk
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 10:47:14 +1300
References: <d54.1f929337.34b3c3cc@aol.com><7981.10.250.10.1.1199740903.squirrel@webmail2.medscape.com>
In-Reply-To: <7981.10.250.10.1.1199740903.squirrel@webmail2.medscape.com>
EGT
If there is a definite correlation as reported, I don't see it as bad
science to report it. Whilst the finding raises more questions, that is
what science is about. You either find an indication of a reason for
something, or you find an interesting question which may lead someone else
to find the reason. This finding may lead someone to identify an important
factor correlated to prostate cancer, which in turn may lead to more
effective treatment or prevention.
Some say that 12 marker Y-DNA tests are bad DNA genealogy. I don't see it
that way. I see 12 marker tests as an economical first screening, to find
persons suitable for further testing. 12 markers allows you to find and
focus on areas which have a higher potential to be interesting.
All information is good if used correctly.
John.
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 10:22 AM
To: ;
Subject: Re: [DNA] Fatherhood Tied to Higher Prostate Cancer Risk
This is another example of bad science --- of which there seem to be many in
our
present culture. In questions like this, there are so any variables, it is
useless
to report on only one vairable. EGT
>
On Mon, January 7, 2008 13:05 EST, wrote:
>
>
>
> In a message dated 1/7/08 9:03:25 AM,
writes:
>
>
> > Oh, good.
The Europeans are already below the replacement rate with
> > their
reproduction. This ought to seal their fate nicely.
> >
>
> Your TIC response nicely illustrates one of my pet peeves with much
reporting
> of science news. That is the cavalier way journalists report
statistical
> correlation in a way that implies a cause and effect
relationship.
> A complete read of the article shows that the researchers
are making no cause
> and effect declarations, however the first paragraph
of the article implies
> that fatherhood causes prostate cancer. Many,
maybe most browsers would read
> that first paragraph, pickup the implied
cause and effect relationship, and move
> on. I know that not many on this
list would do that, but, many in the general
> public would
>
>
> **************
> Start the year off right. Easy ways to
stay in
> shape.
>
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
-------------------------------
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
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1213 - Release Date: 1/7/2008
9:14 AM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1213 - Release Date: 1/7/2008
9:14 AM
This thread: