GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-06 > 1213548889


From: Robert Stafford <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] How could we tell?
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9238E24B-42AB-465F-B619-648FE49C3680@verizon.net>


Not matching a pedigree doesn't prove a mistake. Afterall, that is why we are testing. You need to have them retested elsewhere to be sure.

Bob Stafford


Bill Howard <> wrote:
Just a short note about my experience at SMGF - I sent in 10 samples
in August 2005 and the results were not posted for more than a year.
Some, but not all could later be identified on their web site.
However, they made bad mistakes on two of the samples, due, I think,
to sample switches, and I made many phone calls to people named
Angela, Anna, and Karen. The pedigree did not match the relationships
indicated by the test. My phone calls were taken with courtesy and I
was told to wait. I waited and waited and waited. More phone
calls...... nothing done although I told them exactly what was wrong
and they all promised to look into it. Yes, I could have paid money to
get the results, but if the samples had been switched, it would not
have done any good.
That's a 20% error rate in my book.
- Bye from Bill Howard


On Jun 14, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Robert Stafford wrote:

> It is hard to tell what the lab error rate is, since most errors are
> not reported publically. However, I suspect there are a lot more
> than people think. I have seen about 20 posts about errors here and
> on Genforum. I have also private reports from people about errors.
> One big problem seems to be clerical errors. I am not clear where
> they occur, unless the firms post results to their web sites manually.
>
> There are probably many actual lab errors on single markers that
> have not been discovered. They would probably not arouse suspicion
> and would be discovered only if the person retested. DYS464 seems to
> be a big problem, because the relative peak heights are used. I
> think it is a good idea to retest at www.smgf.org, if there is a
> mutation from the ancestral haplotype. It is a worthwhile project
> anyway.
>
> One of the biggest problems, according to a person who works at a
> lab, is sample switches, often on just one panel. I have seen
> several cases posted. For people working within a documented
> genealogy, they immediate arouse suspicion. However, a loner might
> get bad results and never know.
>
> Bob Stafford
>


"History is the consensus of survivors in authority"
"Reality is the weighted mean of individual perceptions"



-------------------------------
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: