Comments on: How Accurate is Genetic Genealogy? http://genealogy.blogsome.com/2009/06/08/how-accurate-is-genetic-genealogy/ I sit beside the fire and think of people long ago, and people who will see a world that I shall never know. ~Lord of the Rings Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:03:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Blaine T. Bettinger http://genealogy.blogsome.com/2009/06/08/how-accurate-is-genetic-genealogy/#comment-150 Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:13:00 +0100 http://genealogy.blogsome.com/2009/06/08/how-accurate-is-genetic-genealogy/#comment-150 I agree that genetic genealogy is a tool for the genealogist rather than a complete problem-solver. However, I think that implying that genetic genealogy isn't scientific is incorrect. The sequencing results ARE scientific, and although the interpretation of those results are also based on peer-reviewed scientific research, the interpretations can sometimes vary based on a number of factors. For example, a value of “6” at an allele is a scientific sequencing result, but the meaning of that 6 as it applies to genealogy/anthropology/history is continuously being updated and refined with new research. I would also caution against your interpretation of the quote in bold; I think the quote is meant to reflect the author’s following statement from the NIST paper in JoGG rather than the sentiment you implied: “A bigger problem for the genetic genealogy community is that different DNA test providers may have different nomenclatures for calling the same Y-STR allele. It is important for users of these DNA test results to appreciate that these differences arise in how a STR repeat sequence is denoted by the laboratory and not because of some measurement mistake.” J.M. Butler, M.C. Kline and A.E. Decker. Addressing Y-chromosome short tandem repeat (Y-STR) allele nomenclature. J. Genetic Genealogy 4:125-148 (2008). Thus, the differences usually arise from HOW the company measures and reports the allele, not mistakes in measuring the allele. And one can compare results from one company to another, as long as they take care to note that the companies might have reporting differences. The genetic genealogy community is well aware of these reporting differences, and is working with the NIST to make reporting more uniform. Additionally, there are sites available to convert reporting from one company to another company’s format (usually there are only a very few reporting differences). I agree that genetic genealogy is a tool for the genealogist rather than a complete problem-solver. However, I think that implying that genetic genealogy isn’t scientific is incorrect. The sequencing results ARE scientific, and although the interpretation of those results are also based on peer-reviewed scientific research, the interpretations can sometimes vary based on a number of factors. For example, a value of “6” at an allele is a scientific sequencing result, but the meaning of that 6 as it applies to genealogy/anthropology/history is continuously being updated and refined with new research.

I would also caution against your interpretation of the quote in bold; I think the quote is meant to reflect the author’s following statement from the NIST paper in JoGG rather than the sentiment you implied:

“A bigger problem for the genetic genealogy community is that different DNA test providers may have different nomenclatures for calling the same Y-STR allele. It is important for users of these DNA test results to appreciate that these differences arise in how a STR repeat sequence is denoted by the laboratory and not because of some measurement mistake.” J.M. Butler, M.C. Kline and A.E. Decker. Addressing Y-chromosome short tandem repeat (Y-STR) allele nomenclature. J. Genetic Genealogy 4:125-148 (2008).

Thus, the differences usually arise from HOW the company measures and reports the allele, not mistakes in measuring the allele.

And one can compare results from one company to another, as long as they take care to note that the companies might have reporting differences. The genetic genealogy community is well aware of these reporting differences, and is working with the NIST to make reporting more uniform. Additionally, there are sites available to convert reporting from one company to another company’s format (usually there are only a very few reporting differences).

]]>