GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-12 > 1166152269


From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] SNP Results waiting period.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:11:09 +1300
In-Reply-To: <009c01c71fcd$2f2f8a70$6501a8c0@dell>


John,

You said,
>>>>>>>
"By calling
me a complainer doesn't change anything."
<<<<<<<

My posting was not in reply to your posting.

You said
>>>>>>>
"As to the ##### remark that I should
pay triple, I have nothing to say other than I paid what was asked and I
expect to get what I paid for (in a reasonable time) or an explanation as
to why not."
<<<<<<<

If you recall, DNAFP offered what effectively was more than 50% discount for
batches of 100. If one assumes that ordinarily batches were less than 10,
then testing say 8 in a batch might be twice the cost per unit than testing
100 in a batch. If you want to go to extremes, and test in batches of one,
I consider that the reality is that the unit price of testing in a batch of
one, might quite realistically be 3 time the unit rate of testing in a batch
or 100. If it was expected test companies should offer 48 hour service to
everybody, every time, then the price of testing might triple over night. I
don't know why my remark should be "#####", I made the comment because I
thought realistically, it would cost triple the price for a quick result. I
was proposing a system where people had the option to pay a realistic
premium for a quick result. You have said you don't think you have never
complained about speed or results. If a two tier price was offered, you
would be able to make an informed choice. If you wanted 48 hour service,
you might realistically have to pay triple, that is simply what I estimate
would be a likely premium cost for fast service. It may be more.

I understand your long running concerns about calibration, are only about
calibration. As I understand, you have the results, and you have enough
information to compare one company with temporary calibration, to another
company with temporary calibration. So you are freely able to use the
results for intended purpose, which is to compare to everyone else in the
World who has publicly available results for these markers. It would be
nice to know how final calibration will be resolved, it affects me too. But
on a scale of 1 to 10, I see this as a 0.1 ranking problem.

I note that when EA started offering the markers you are concerned about,
they were the only ones in the World commercially offering those markers.
Although the calibration was advertised as being temporary, we might not
have been even thinking it was a problem, if another test company had not
come along, offering the same markers, and using a different calibration. I
think we are much better off with the two companies concerned working
together to resolve calibration, rather than in the past where different
companies went their own ways, and all used different calibrations with no
thought of cooperation.

John.




-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message



This thread: