Slashdot Mirror


Ancestry.com To Add DNA Test Results

Spamicles writes "For less than $200 and a cheek-swiped cotton swab, you will soon be able to add DNA results to family tree Web sites. Ancestry.com plans to launch the DNA testing product by the end of summer, offering customers the possibility of finding DNA matches in the site's 24,000 genealogical databases. By taking a simple cheek-swab test and comparing results against DNA profiles in a test-results database, virtually anyone can uncover genealogical associations unimaginable just a few years ago. Users can easily connect with and discover lost or unknown relatives within a few generations, as well as gain insight into where their families originated thousands of years ago."

50 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. This has been available for a while by niceone · · Score: 5, Funny

    This has been available for a while at www.fbi.gov. Users can easily connect with and discover lost or unknown crimes they have committed, as well as gain insight into the legal system and prison food.

    1. Re:This has been available for a while by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All kidding aside ... would the FBI (or some other government or law enforcement agency) ever be able to request (wink wink) your DNA from ancestry.com? I doubt there's a 'web site/client' privilege to contend with. Is there any real expectation of privacy if you voluntarily submit it to them?

    2. Re:This has been available for a while by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      would the FBI (or some other government or law enforcement agency) ever be able to request (wink wink) your DNA from ancestry.com?
      Absolutely. They'd technically need a warrant, though. /snicker

      If it would help make the streets safer for our children, why would anyone have a problem with that?

      Sorry, full of the snark this morning.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:This has been available for a while by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      IANAL, but I'm guessing that they could request your DNA from ancestry.com, and if the site refused to turn over results, they could probably get a subpoena as long as they were able to show reasonable cause. But this would be no different than getting DNA directly from you, which is much cleaner in terms of the chain of evidence.

      OTOH, as long as a doctor is the one obtaining the DNA, there is a degree of doctor/patient confidentiality. On the gripping hand, the courts generally will still issue a subpoena to get DNA from medical records (again, with reasonable cause), and I suppose it's no different in this case.

    4. Re:This has been available for a while by niceone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They don't even have to get the data! They just have to take the DNA from the crime scene and submit it to this site... then whoever is closest related probably did it.

    5. Re:This has been available for a while by kalirion · · Score: 2, Funny

      IANAL, but I'm guessing that they could request your DNA from ancestry.com, and if the site refused to turn over results, they could probably get a subpoena as long as they were able to show reasonable cause. But this would be no different than getting DNA directly from you, which is much cleaner in terms of the chain of evidence.

      Or they could just ask RIAA to borrow their pretexting experts.

    6. Re:This has been available for a while by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's the worry, I think: law enforcement agencies could take a crime scene sample, run it against the entire Ancestry.com database, and decide that whoever comes up with the closest match must have done it. And in the current climate, they might well make it stick, even if the crime involves ... [gasp] pedophilia ... or [shock] terrorism ... or [falls over dead from the horror of it] record piracy.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    7. Re:This has been available for a while by AvitarX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except if the get it from you. You can hire a lawyer and start planning your defense (weather guilty or not). If they get it from Ancestry.com they can keep you in the dark and blindside you months later.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    8. Re:This has been available for a while by db32 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just gunna go out on a limb here, but I suspect that you are more likely to find the DNA match of a victim than a criminal. I may just be making broad generalizations here but I would suspect that most of the people who would submit their DNA to Ancestory.com are not the same type of people who go leaving their DNA at crime scenes, let alone are every around any crime scenes as anything other than a victim.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    9. Re:This has been available for a while by Animaether · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a bit and say that just because somebody's DNA is found at a scene doesn't automatically make agencies go "he did it". It's -a- piece of evidence and one that can be discarded as easily as *snaps fingers* that if there's a good explanation.

      Now... if you have no alibi for the time they're placing the crime at, and no good explanation whatsoever of why your DNA would be there... yes, the police may investigate you a little closer. Still doesn't mean they'll just skip the whole investigation and trial thing and just lock you up 'because the DNA said he did it'. If they tried, then lawyers these days are quite savvy enough to come up with some reasonable explanation of why your DNA might be there (even if you can't), and the cops, too, know they'll need a little more than that to convince a judge/jury.

      I find automated bits and pieces just as scary as the next guy (probably a bit scarier because I've been detained at 3 separate events for carrying a camera with a suspicious looking lens (it's a fisheye) - one of which was a bomb scare - so yeah, I know how it feels to automatically be 'suspect'), but let's not blow things way out of proportion.

    10. Re:This has been available for a while by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would suspect that most of the people who would submit their DNA to Ancestory.com are not the same type of people who go leaving their DNA at crime scenes, let alone are every around any crime scenes as anything other than a victim.
      Sure, but if you get someone with enough similarities to suggest a familial connection, you can go interview them about their family.

      "Mrs. Scharffenberger, do you have any close relatives who live in the Mendocino area? Do you know where they were Saturday night?"
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    11. Re:This has been available for a while by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think it's blowing things out of proportion to say "this could be a problem." Look, I'm not saying Ancestry.com should be prohibited from doing what they're doing; I'm not even saying you shouldn't send them a sample if you're interested in genealogical research and think you might get something out of it. But it is a situation which deserves careful monitoring. The fact of the matter is, innocent people do get investigated, charged, and even convicted on the flimsiest of evidence, particularly when dealing with politically charged crimes.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    12. Re:This has been available for a while by djh101010 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is that to say you've never lied, even a little bit? You've never once said a not so nice thing to someone? And that said, all bad people have never done a good thing? They never once held a door open for someone? They hold no compassion for anyone or anything?

      Then you have completely missed my point. There is a huge difference between what you say above, and things like rape, murder, arson, etc. Those who commit the latter are the bad people. Those who do the former are merely imperfect and human.

      Sorry, but there is no black and white, good and evil. Only shades of grey. A criminal that steals may have been left with two choices: starve or steal. Lose their home or steal. most "bad" people are the product of their environment, they weren't born that way, just as the "good" people were. And now you're insulting all of those who live in the same circumstances who do not choose to become criminals.

      It's a matter of circumstance, and while I consider myself a relatively good person, I take offense to the line of thinking that someone who commits a crime is simply a "bad person". Likewise, you pretending there isn't an ethical decision made to victimize others, that it's just circumstances, is offensive.

      It's a way of thinking that I'm sure makes your life easier, being able to split the world into two camps. But that's just not reality. It absolutely is. Criminals, particularly violent criminals, know that the behavior they do is not right, and choose to do it anyway. That is what makes them a _bad person_. Nothing gray about this.
    13. Re:This has been available for a while by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Informative

      In Houston, they are reviewing (and turning over many of) over a hundred cases that were based on DNA evidence.

      There was this problem of the lab using incorrect techniques and even worse apparently just saying the DNA evidence matched if the prosecution really wanted it too.

      DNA evidence can be manipulated fairly easily apparently. It took close to a decade before they got caught.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    14. Re:This has been available for a while by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I hope they go to ancestory.com to get my DNA. Just grab a random bum of the street, pay him a fifth of scotch to give a small blood sample and say its yours, and submit. Next time you leave DNA at a crimescene, the FBI will get a warrant (secret or otherwise), compare your DNA to the bum's DNA, it won't hit and it will throw a wrench in thier investigation.

      If the bum were to leave their DNA at a scene, you can clear your own name by giving a blood sample and just claiming that ancestory.com screwed up the samples.

  2. I hate the relatives I have by east+coast · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why would I want to find out that I have more?

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  3. Privacy? by MMC+Monster · · Score: 4, Informative

    I had a genealogy site up a few years ago. I eventually took it down due to complaints from my (extended) family regarding privacy concerns. I had people emailing me asking to remove their mothers' maiden names from the database.

    God only knows how something like ancestry.com manages to keep afloat with all the privacy concerns.

    P.S. I would try to put my database back up and require registration for searching, but there is no way for me to validate any registration (to avoid identity theives), so the point is probably moot.

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    1. Re:Privacy? by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My mother does genealogy. She has parts of our family back to the 1400's. I've discussed many options with her on bigger, better, faster (and more computer-centric) ways to gather the information. There are a lot of obstacles.

          The saddest is what you ran into. If I remember what she told me correctly, it's either legally required, or just good form, to only publish those who are deceased or records older than 80 years. I'm probably off on that number though. Why I consider it sad is that I wouldn't know cousin Vinnie. He (the mythical Vinnie) could be a blood relation from a fork of our tree in 1500 Europe.

          She wants, or needs, to show real documentation of the person and how they relate. She considers the accuracy of her work very important. Just because she finds (buys, borrows, whatever) someone else's tree doesn't mean that any of the information in it is accurate. Say our trees did cross. How is she to know without all the supporting documentation that the details are correct. Maybe that birth of Isaac on December 4 of 1606 was really April 12th of 1606. If she follows your tree without verification, she'll be following incorrect data to dead ends.

          I do like the idea of being able to find real-world relations. For my family, we're friendly enough so I don't suspect there would be problems. I know some families aren't quite so nice. Just because cousin Vinnie is a billionaire, every distant cousin would be bugging him for some of his cash.

          I'll probably be putting myself into the system. I'm curious to see who's out there. Maybe I have a distant cousin who's also a reader here, and we have a lot in common. :) Maybe it just doesn't matter if you're a cousin or not. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:Privacy? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All anyone has to do is go to the area they were born in and go through the hall of records or whatever it is and bam. You got all this info.
      Well, it's an onerous task to do all that research. Security through obscurity and pain-in-the-assity actually works most of the time in the real world. It's when it becomes EASY to find that information that the amount of identity theft becomes a problem worth spending a ton of resources to defeat.

      And to be honest, shouldnt we be using something OTHER than Mother's maiden name to reset passwords and crap by now?
      Yes. Unfortunately, the credit card companies would have to spend a lot of money making a change like that, so it's not going to happen any time soon.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:Privacy? by Rauser · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unfortunately, the IGI (International Genealogical Index) that is hosted at Familysearch.org is one of the absolutely least accurate resources available, full of errors and information about living people. The IGI is treated very sceptically by genealogists, even though it occasionally contains the odd nugget of valuable info.

      --
      The white zone is for loading and unloading only. If you need to load or unload go to the white zone. It's a way of life
    4. Re:Privacy? by Mikkeles · · Score: 2, Informative
      'And to be honest, shouldnt we be using something OTHER than Mother's maiden name to reset passwords and crap by now?'

      Yes. However, the banks, etc., don't really care what answer you use for mother's maiden name; give them anything you want which you will remember if needed. This applies to any of these test questions; the answer need not have anything to do with reality.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    5. Re:Privacy? by ParticleGirl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Although all this stuff is a matter of public record, most of it isn't readily accessible. The internet changes the whole meaning of public. We're talking about institutions which have existed for decades if not centuries, and for them the internet is still new.
       
      I worked at a data archive under the Department of Justice and the FBI in the late 90s/early 00s, and they were just making a switch to dowloads from distributing CDs full of data for the cost of the CD plus shipping. You see, the data was supposed to be a matter of public record. But if they wanted a copy, once upon a time it meant many, many days with a mimeograph. Or a punchcard machine. Or waiting for (and paying for) a CD to arrive in the mail. (All of these changes over the course of 20 years, after many decades of needing to visit!)
          People finally had the bandwith to download. The biggest issue people at the archive struggled with? If it's too easy to use, any schmuck who wants to can get a copy. In the past you had to go to great, or at least greater, lengths to get the information. There was more resistance than you can imagine to making the website user friendly as opposed to intentional obfuscation(!) simply because "a matter of public record" has a very, very different meaning now than it did twenty years ago.

      If the FBI wants your mother's maiden name (or diary) and have filled out all the appropriate paperwork, they can find out whether they have to go to the local archive (or your bedroom) or not. But if Joe Schmoe wants your mother's maiden name (or your diary), there's a difference between him making a special trip to an archive (or visiting your bedroom) and him typing your name into Google.

      Which is not to say I don't think that "matter of public record" information shouldn't be on the internet. It should be. Information wants to be free and all that... but lots of very stupid people are going to suffer because they didn't realize that their blog wasn't private, and lots and lots of smart people are going to suffer because some credit companies only allow people to use things that are a matter of public record as passwords. It's going to take a while for people-- and especially for institutions-- to get used to the idea that public has a whole new meaning; that accessible is the new last word in privacy.

      --
      Do something about world hunger. Click here
    6. Re:Privacy? by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did you also remind them to stop using there mothers maiden names for crap?

      I mean, they're family so you had to pull it down, but still.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  4. This is going to be interesting by laron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Doctors calculate that about 5-10% of all children have a different biological father than they (and their "social" fathers) think.

    --
    "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    1. Re:This is going to be interesting by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doctors calculate that about 5-10% of all children have a different biological father than they (and their "social" fathers) think. I know my dad is my "biological father". He's a miserable asocial misanthrope just like I am. It's true what they say that the apple doesn't rot far from the tree.
    2. Re:This is going to be interesting by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd be happy to share it, but would probably be banned for life from here for the language I'd use. Dad!? You post on /. too?
    3. Re:This is going to be interesting by BlueTrin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Doctors calculate that about 5-10% of all children have a different biological father than they (and their "social" fathers) think.

      Can you provide a link to the study, I have often seen this quote, but never found a reliable source which shows the result of the study.
      --
      Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
    4. Re:This is going to be interesting by TheMeuge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not a myth. It becomes apparent when people get their blood typed against their parents... for transplant and transfusion reasons. When the mother is AO-, the father is AB-, and the kid is O+, it's pretty easy to see what happened.

  5. Wow by purduephotog · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was pretty interested in the service that would trace your genetic heritage- race, country of origin (or percentage, etc)- it would have been fascinating. My uncle has mapped his side of the family (1/2 mine) back to the 1400's... so this extra step would be incredible to combine with.

    Then... there's the privacy aspect. But just because I didn't do anything, yet, doesn't mean....

    It'll be interesting to see.

  6. Powered by the NSA? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Give the people some sugar and they will willingly hand over what they normally wouldn't give you at gunpoint...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Re:Possibly overlooked.. by clickclickdrone · · Score: 2, Funny

    >wouldn't it be nice to find out the DNA of your neighbours?
    Some of mine are pretty sweet, I'd like to give them some DNA if you know what I mean.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  8. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I hope people realise that when they post DNA it's not just their own but also contains information about parents, children, siblings and cousins. Basically your family.

    Insurance company - "We've found that your family has a higher risk of kidney disease. In the interest of sharing the risk we won't offer insurance for dialysis or kidney transplant".

    I just hope they make the effort to educate people about the pro's and con's of making your dna public.

  9. Worst idea ever by suv4x4 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For less than $200 and a cheek-swiped cotton swab, you will soon be able to add DNA results to family tree Web sites.

    Excellent, now the last thing left is for someone to invent a practical cloning machine.
    For less than $200 of course.

    Anyone got a bittorent to Pamela Anderson's DNA?

    1. Re:Worst idea ever by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Here's most of it (you can select other chromosomes for downloading through that interface):
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mapview/seq_reg.cgi?ta xid=9606&chr=1&from=1&to=247249719

      The rest is just a matter of a few million mutations scattered throughout the genome. Oh, and the bits of the genome that are proving to be very difficult to sequence.


      That's like painting a DELL white and calling it "Macintosh". No candy for you.

  10. Genetic traits over DNA by boyfaceddog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Genetic traits can be a better pointer to which region a family came from than simple DNA. After all, DNA takes all that combination stuff (I think it's called sex) and has many latent traits that may or may not show up depending on genetics of both parents.

    For example part of my family is Swiss, about six generations back. Part of my wife's family is also Swiss, about four generations back. Her family happens to be from the part of Switzerland that has a wierd abnormality in a small percentage of their population. Sometimes their adult teeth don't develop. Because of this trait and research my wife was able to trace her family to an exact village.

    Oh, and no ones privacy was ever in danger.

    DNA on the other hand is still latereal in time and not verticle. Unless you want to test a corpse you can't go back many generations. A good tool to see what uncle Joe REALLY did on those "sales" trips in Vegas, but not much good as a family history research tool.

    --
    Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
  11. But what if your DNA doesn't match? by AmIAnAi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is a website the best place to discover that your DNA doesn't match any of your close relatives, as you were expecting it to - that your parents are not your natural parents and you were adopted?

    Unfortunately, there are many cases of people not being told that they were adopted and a web site like this is not the ideal way to discover this. You really need an organization that has some form of immediate support for people who receive unexpected surprises.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
  12. Re:Why exactly by grylnsmn · · Score: 4, Informative

    The LDS Church doesn't run Ancestry.com. It runs FamilySearch.org.

    And no, that has nothing to do with "put[ting] more names in the Book of Mormon". In fact, while Baptism for the Dead is mentioned in the Bible (1 Corinthians 15:29), it isn't mentioned at all in the Book of Mormon.

  13. Re:What?? by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Funny


        Fell out of a tree?

        Landed in a volcano in a spaceship that looked like a DC3?

        Descendants of the arc?

        There are so many stories. Pick one. No, pick two, keep it interesting. :)

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  14. That reminds me of a joke I read some moons ago by vivaoporto · · Score: 5, Funny

    A married couple went to the hospital to have their baby delivered. Upon their arrival, the doctor said he had invented a new machine that would transfer a portion of the mother's labor pain to the father. He asked if
    they were willing to try it out. They were both very much in favor of it. The doctor set the pain transfer to 10% for starters, explaining that even 10% was probably more pain than the father had ever experienced before.
    But as the labor progressed, the husband felt fine and asked the doctor to go ahead and bump it up a notch. The doctor then adjusted the machine to 20% pain transfer. The husband was still feeling fine. The doctor checked
    the husband's blood pressure and was amazed at how well he was doing. At this point they decided to try for 50%. The husband continued to feel quite well. Since the pain transfer was obviously helping out the wife considerably, the husband encouraged the doctor to transfer ALL the pain to him. The wife deliverer a healthy baby with virtually no pain. She and her husband were ecstatic.

    When they got home, the mailman was dead on the porch.

  15. Ancestry.com needs a new way to make money by Rauser · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since its fat gravy train is going to end soon... How? With the massive FREE release of the entire scanned archive from the Mormon Vault in Salt Lake City (to be available on www.familysearch.org). Once this project has gone live much of the information that Ancestry.com currently charges for will be essentially public domain.

    There already is a schism forming between Ancestry.com and Familysearch.org, seen from the collapse of arrangements between the Mormon church and Ancestry to provide the Ancestry.com service free in the LDS Family History centers around the world.

    --
    The white zone is for loading and unloading only. If you need to load or unload go to the white zone. It's a way of life
  16. You insensitive clod... by Dareth · · Score: 2, Funny

    My wife and I are trying to have a baby... only our mail carrier is female.... I don't have any backup!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  17. If I had the spare cash... by JoeD · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If I had the spare cash, I'd take a swab from a slab of lunch meat and send that in. Or my cat.

  18. It's cute and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But I still would never put my DNA on file with anyone, much less pay for it.

    More power to those who will try this out, though, you're far less paranoid than I am!

  19. Bradshaw Foundation by 12WTF$ · · Score: 5, Informative

    FFS! Rather than moderate the /dribble about DNA forensic testing as OT, I'll contribute.

    This is a valuable service (yes there are others available) that tests certain parts of the mitachondrial DNA to establish your maternal lineage and tests certain parts of the Y chromosome (I make the assumption that 98% of the readers are male) to establish your paternal lineage.
    If you want to educate yourself on one of the benefits, please take a few hours to learn how this technique has provided amazing details of the 165k yr journey of mankind to populate the planet http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey

    --
    Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
  20. Non-paternity rate: reference by TwoSevenOneEight · · Score: 5, Informative

    Studies have generated a range of rates of "non-paternity events". There's an article with more details in this month's The Atlantic (subscription required):

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200707/paternity

    From the article:

    "When geneticists do large-scale studies of populations, they sometimes can't help but learn about the paternity of the research subjects. They rarely publish their findings, but the numbers are common knowledge within the genetics community. In graduate school, genetics students typically are taught that 5 to 15 percent of the men on birth certificates are not the biological fathers of their children. In other words, as many as one of every seven men who proudly carry their newborn children out of a hospital could be a cuckold."

    "Non-paternity rates appear to be substantially lower in some populations. The Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, which is based in Salt Lake City, now has a genetic and genealogical database covering almost 100,000 volunteers, with an overrepresentation of people interested in genealogy. The non-paternity rate for a representative sample of its father-son pairs is less than 2 percent. But other reputed non-paternity rates are higher than the canonical numbers. One unpublished study of blood groups in a town in southeastern England indicated that 30 percent of the town's husbands could not have been the biological fathers of their children."

  21. Re:I have experience with this... by tehcyder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I couldn't find any decent data in humans. For birds there is some information. That is where the 5-10% comes from
    Unfortunately this also led to the conclusion that 99.9% of babies are born covered in feathers and able to fly within a couple of weeks.
    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  22. Your DNA is not public, just markers by SnailNobra · · Score: 2, Informative

    Your DNA is not public, just the markers. When your DNA is profiled they will use a set number of markers (anywhere between 12 and 44) to determine your halpogroups (where your DNA originated from) and place you into a combination of groups. It is these markers that become public. Generally the testing sites will destroy your DNA after 6 months; it is kept this long incase you want to have other tests done like y-chromosome, mitochondrial, etc.

    Chances are the testing is being contracted out to another organization like The DNA Testing Center of America or another large DNA testing lab at which the DNA retention policies would be that of the lab.

    --
    Nihilism means nothing to the dancing peasants
  23. Altogether now... in three-part harmony... by dpbsmith · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh, I can only imagine the mischief this will potentially cause... as people discover, not just ancestors they didn't know they had, but ancestors they thought they had, but don't.

    "So the years went by and he wished he was dead. He had seventeen girls and still wasn't wed.
    When he'd ask his papa, papa would always say, 'No! That girl is your sister but your mama don't know!'

    "So he went to his mama and he bowed his head. Told his mama what his papa had said.
    His mama said, 'Son, go, man, go! Your papa ain't your papa but your papa don't know!'"

    --"Ah Woe, Ah Me," Nick Reynolds, Bob Shane, John Stewart, popularized by the Kingston Trio

    "She's the illegitimate daughter, of the illegitimate son, of the illegitimate nephew of Napoleon."

    --Ira Gershwin, _Of Thee I Sing+

  24. It would likely be useless. by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Depending on the number of markers on a person's DNA test, this will range from the fairly useless to the totally useless. These things can't even be used for paternity tests. Let's say someone has 37 Y-chromosome markers tested - a fairly common thing to do. You will match if you have a last common ancestor in the last 6 generations. Very useful for genealogy, but bugger all use for criminology, unless they want to press charges against your great great grandfather.

    The most extreme test available (67 Y-chromosome markers + deep subclade + Kittler DYS385, 25 autosomnal DNA markers, 16 X-chromosome markers and complete mapping of the mitochondrial DNA + identification of sub-sub-branch), assuming the DNA was from a male, would be good enough to identify a person and all their male siblings. It's no better than that. And, frankly, these tests aren't cheap and unless you were adopted from a fairly high-tech country, no sane person would ever get this level of testing. They'd have the family tree back some number of generations and would not bother testing more accurately than needed to examine the next few generations out.

    The other thing to consider is that these are not supervised tests. Anyone can send in DNA from anyone else under any name at all, and the lab would have no way of knowing. It makes no difference to the person getting the test done, because all lookups from there-on-out are all done by reference number or by the name of the most ancient ancestor known, not by the living person's name.

    From a law-enforcement perspective, it might eliminate some possibilities, but I can't see it being useful in positive identification.

    Now, there IS one area of concern for me. Some DNA labs do retain additional DNA samples for retesting or upgrades from previous tests. This is raw DNA material and could potentially be accessed by the wrong person. Usually, there is some protection (the vials are only marked with a serial number, not a name), but law enforcement could potentially gain access to the database that links name to number. That could be a problem.

    Beyond that, though, this really does only have use for genealogists, historians and anthropologists. The data is just too vague for anyone else.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)