GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-01 > 1136326522


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Haplogroup I1*x {Genographic Project]
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 17:15:22 EST


In a message dated 01/03/06 11:19:56 AM Pacific Standard Time,
writes:

> The NatGeo/FTDNA 12 marker tests were a setback for the whole field. This
> fellow does show the 13/17 at 385 which might tilt his odds concerning a and
>
> b a bit. Hopefully he will upgrade.

I must emphatically disagree with this. The 12-marker tests for public
participation are an entree into a field where many people would never have ventured
without the publicity and brand-name recognition offered by the National
Geographic Society. People who get hooked that way can easily upgrade if they want
more precision for subclade testing and genealogical match-making.

Bill B expressed disappointment about not getting more GP participants signed
up in his surname projects. Give it some time, and also realize that there
may be some fringe benefits that you can't trace directly to the GP project,
when people become more comfortable with the very notion of DNA testing to study
ancestry. Here's a column about "genetic literacy" by the founder of WIRED,
which shows how people can become intrigued by the field:

http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archives/000923.php

And Bill, you must also give the National Geographic some time to analyze
results and develop presentation tools for the public participation phase. I
believe even this "uncontrolled" data collection can have some scientific value,
for example in estimating mtDNA mutation rates by looking at the diversity of
haplotypes.

Back to Ken, the field research portion, with more controlled population data
sets, will indeed include more markers. But again, this is not going to
happen overnight. The first task is to get the samples, not an easy task
logistically, never mind the cultural/governmental barriers the project may encounter.

Ann Turner




This thread: