GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-04 > 1208971022


From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: [DNA] Transparency (was R1b1c test for S3, S10, S13, S17)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:17:02 -0400
References: <941019.84426.qm@web413.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com><A28BDBEA-0B51-4DB1-B864-5339DB356D07@vizachero.com><C4C2B4C0-8537-4D5B-A0F1-223096F31520@vizachero.com><jzsbw6.yiwcj6@webmail.variomedia.de>
In-Reply-To: <jzsbw6.yiwcj6@webmail.variomedia.de>


Thomas,

I recognize that there are many different aspects to this question.
Being unsure of which aspects you actually had in mind, I provided
the most basic reply to your initial "yes or no" question.

I happen to agree with you in almost every respect regarding the
value of transparent discovery. I think it will benefit FTDNA
greatly in the long run, and I suspect in large part it already has.
I'd be shocked if the growth rate at FTDNA over the past two years
doesn't exceed the growth rate at other firms by a wide margin.

Would I prefer that Jim Wilson have published the primers for these
four markers? Absolutely! If he had, and had FTDNA offered the SNPs
right away, their place in the Y tree would have been perfectly well
established long ago.

But the fact is that they have the SNPs, they've kept the details
private, and my opinion is that the genetic genealogy community is
better off knowing where they fall on the Y tree than not knowing.
Which is why I am trying to get two or three people to try them out.

You know very well that I care about the details of the molecular and
genetic tests we discuss. While you may see me "promoting" these
four SNPs in recent days, perhaps you never noticed me "promoting"
the U Series panel, V Series panel, DYS461, DYF385, etc in public
forums and in private communication to the participants in my FTDNA
projects. The "cacophony" of demand for the U Series tests arose in
part because of people like me (and other project administrators)
telling folks not to order S21 and S28 from EA but to wait for FTDNA
to offer the markers. That they were (eventually) coming.

If I were you, I'd tell the "business oriented head" of your company
that the problem, if there is one, is not your policy of transparency
but rather that it has historically taken FTDNA too frakkin long to
get new products introduced. The wait for the U Series was
interminable and two years after the a la carte STR order process was
introduced we still don't have a la carte SNP testing at FTDNA.
Except for rs34276300, of course. And where is P297 for my R1b1*
folks? Or the 18 R1b-assigned SNPS from Hinds et al.?

You ultimate question to me was: Are you interested in the flow of
information from the company labs to the public or not? To that, I
can only say: yes, I am. The more information the better.

Vince

On Apr 23, 2008, at 11:48 AM, Thomas Krahn wrote:

> Here's just a copy from the discussion Vince and I had on the other
> List:
>>
>> Dear Vince,
>>
>> I thought that an intelligent person like you would give reasons to
>> support your opinion.
>>
>> Consider this:
>> Since I have started to collaborate with FTDNA nearly 2 years ago, I
>> have been fighting for 100% transparency in this company like a fool.
>> It took me a huge effort to convince the business oriented head of
>> the
>> company that giving all available information to the public will turn
>> out to be the better solution for FTDNA on the long run. Think
>> about all
>> the information that we have published in the Literature and in the Y
>> chromosome browser, not to mention all comments on the list and in
>> the
>> archives that are open and free for all our competitors.
>>
>> Now, every time you or others are promoting to test protected markers
>> from another company the (FTDNA) internal pressure on myself grows,
>> because people that believe that 100% transparency was not the
>> right way
>> to go see themselves proved right. So your attempt to promote S3, S10
>> etc. definitely weakens my position at FTDNA. I can definitely not
>> understand why you are not interested in the molecular genetic
>> background of the test that you suggest to others. This is what
>> actually
>> need to understand the genetic context and what you need to
>> conclude the
>> genealogical interpretation.
>>
>> This discussion is not about business. FTDNA doesn't really care if
>> let's say 37 persons per month (=10%, this is the number of
>> rs34276300- R-M269 X U106 we have found so far) are going to order
>> these
>> tests from EA. We will respect them to be the first here and we
>> will not
>> offer those markers for a longer period. Remember we did the same
>> with
>> S21 and S28. Our lab was able to test for them right the day after
>> the
>> markers were published, but we didn't offer them commercially for
>> a long
>> period until the pressure of our customers was so big that we had to.
>> However the only right way for EA to offer these markers was to
>> publish
>> at least the position and the ancestral & derived states of the SNPs
>> they are offering. Without this I wouldn't order this specific marker
>> from them. Only the customers have the power to request this
>> information
>> from a company.
>>
>> So the bottom line is, that if you promote those undocumented
>> markers,
>> you will unintentionally reduce the flow of information from FTDNA to
>> the public which I personally don't want at all.
>> Thus my follow up question is: Are you interested in the flow of
>> information from the company labs to the public or not?
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>> vineviz wrote:
>>>
>>> --- In
> <mailto:DNA-ANTHROGENEALOGY%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> <mailto:DNA-ANTHROGENEALOGY%40yahoogroups.com>, Thomas Krahn
>>> <thomas@...>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Vince,
>>>>
>>>> Is there any point in testing markers that are not documented?
>>>>
>>>> Thomas
>>>
>>> I think so, at least in this case.
>>>
>>> __
>>
>> _
>
>
>
> Vincent Vizachero wrote:
>> If there are any R1b1b or R1b1c people interested in ordering S3,
>> S10, S13,
> and S17 under the terms mentioned below, please contact me this
> week so you
> can be included.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: