GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-02 > 1201871532


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA Testing Times
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 08:12:12 EST



In a message dated 1/31/2008 11:14:09 P.M. Central Standard Time,
writes:

It just depends on the quality of the lab.


No, it just depends on the number of people of working at the company and
the quantity of tests flowing through the lab. That's basic operations fact.
Almost all of the errors I have ever heard about from any lab are not, in
fact, LAB errors, but clerical errors. There is an increased likelihood of
those in comparing a staff of 15-20 processing x test kits to a staff of about 60
processing the same number of kits. If the smaller staff is processing x+y
kits while the larger staff is processing x kits, the probability of human,
clerical error increases.

Lab Quality, in my opinion, depends on the qualifications and
professionalism of the staff, and the accuracy of results NOT "turnaround time." Testing
company quality, in my opinion, depends on:
1. Lab Quality
2. Range of Products and Services
3. Customer Responsivenss
4. Competitive Product Pricing

Sorenson does very well on #1, but it falls down #2, and RG/Ancestry failed
on #3. I also hear Ancestry is having a little trouble with haplogroup
predictions and getting results confused between customers. DNAH does better on
#3 but still doesn't offer FGS (WGS) for mtDNA nor extended marker sets for
Y-DNA. #4 is a toss up -- very little difference between the companies.

I have no problem with the LAB quality of any of the major providers.
However, I'd personally rather wait a little longer for a lab which offers the
services I want or may want, unique products, and complete responsiveness to
customer wants and needs. A quick result from a company which cannot offer all
the tests I want, and which doesn't answer my emails within 24 hours, bill me
correctly, etc. doesn't meet my standards for a superior testing company.

That being said, I have the policy in my projects of accepting results from
any lab, and will continue to have that policy, as I believe that individual
desires to patronize particular businesses should be honored and I'm not
"cutting off my nose" for my surname projects by denying my members the ability
to compare results and paper trails with someone who chose to patronize another
lab for whatever reason.

But let's not case unfair aspersions on other testing companies, such as
implications that their labs are below par, just because we have personal
reasons to prefer patronizing a different lab. I have a number of reasons for
choosing the companies I prefer, but never would I dream of implying that
Sorenson Genomics has poor lab quality. It's simply not true. I think it is rather
intellectually dishonest for proponents of Sorenson to make those
implications about other labs.

Anne



**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489

This thread: