Recently, some of my nevermo family members used DNA tests to find out their heritage and encouraged me to do so. I felt hesitant then, and since, have decided not to get mine done.

First of all, I don't believe this information will remain confidential or private. In addition, this information could potentially be used by health insurance companies to deny benefits, depending on the user's hereditary health profile. And finally, some of my family's relationships are whacked and I don't want to discover relatives due to infidelity.

Why did you/do you choose to use DNA tests or not?

I've been thinking a lot about this, because although I would VERY much like to learn what my DNA says about my heritage (I already am well aware of what my relatives have said), I have some real reservations about DNA information banking.

I am pretty sure there are no real secrets about my ancestry left. Regardless of the apparent fact that I am the biological offspring of the "wrong" brother (the one my mother was NOT married to), either way I wind up with the same paternal grandparents (which is the MOST important thing to me, beyond any other consideration).

As I understand the process, when DNA is submitted to any of these companies, the information becomes the property of that company, and can be used in any way that company desires. Although I am, on the one hand, very much in favor of law enforcement being able to identify felonious criminals like murderers and rapists, this has also caused me to pause and think a great deal about the possible "also trues."

For example: I have (evidently) half-brothers I have never met (they are the sons of my biological father and his wife). If one of them were to commit a serious crime (murder, etc.), then if MY DNA had been [collected? archived? I don't know the right verb here], it would potentially be possible for that person to be identified through MY on-file DNA--even though I have never met my brothers, and they (very, VERY likely!!) don't even know I exist (either as a half-sister, or as a putative cousin).

It would be, of course, a good thing for a murderer or a rapist (etc.) to be identified, regardless of family complications, but in a society in which we have still to develop proper and acceptable safeguards, what is to prevent this KIND of procedure being done for reasons as trivial as a theoretical parking ticket?

Once my DNA is accessible as information, it then has the potential to identify not only my brothers who don't even know I exist, but their offspring as well.

Is this okay?

Or is it a proverbial bridge too far?

I don't know.

I am, however, actively thinking about it. (I am a writer. Writers and philosophers and legal experts and scientific ethicists think about these kinds of things.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2019 04:18PM by Tevai.

It's a double-edged sword, isn't it? I would want criminals to be identified, too.

The lure of knowing my DNA stuff is pretty strong, if only HIPAA rules applied to it too.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

"First of all, I don't believe this information will remain confidential or private."

And this matters because why? Where you live is fairly easily obtainable information. Your financial transactions, web pages you have viewed, your emails, what credit cards you have, what you buy with them, even how much cash you withdraw from a bank account - all of that is either public, or private but obtainable in a legal investigation. Oh, and your cell phone is probably being tracked. And that's all information, about you, specifically, as a living, breathing individual. You're worried about someone finding out you are 28% Irish? Really?

It's currently illegal in the US to deny health coverage because of a pre-existing condition, and I assume that includes future potential pre-existing conditions, so to speak. Maybe that's incentive to make sure such actions by insurance companies stays illegal. We all have a dog in that fight.

Incidentally, if insurance companies could deny coverage for diseases for which you have a genetic pre-disposition, all they'd have to do is require a genetic test before issuing a policy. If you refuse, they don't sell you *any* insurance. It is in our interest to keep that illegal too. It is in their interest to deny coverage to potentially expensive claimants, so it will be a continual struggle.

I opted out of the "find relatives" part of the Ancestry DNA test. As coincidence would have it, I just got an update this morning on my profile, done a couple years ago.I wasn't aware they did that. It was previously 10% "unknown". That is now down to 6%, with a smidgen more of Irish and Finnish/Russian thrown into the mix.

As for relatives, I rarely see the ones I know about. I doubt finding any "surprises" would change that, though my DNA analysis told me absolutely nothing I didn't already know, and didn't tell me anything about a few things I don't know, which was the reason for the test in the first place. (darn!)


Short answer: I'm not that worried about it. There's far more important information about me floating around in the cloud, some of which has already been hacked. Privacy? ::snort::

I opted out of the "find relatives" thing, too. Just in case I don't like somebody that I'm related to. . .

For what it's worth, catnip,there are circumstances in which the police could probably obtain your data via subpoena. Once it exists in some data base, it is discoverable.

for genetic predisposition to chronic diseases, if you were seeking private insurance.

And other info?

You could drop Simon Southerton a note (e-mail me for his address if need be); I know he had his done, and he's one person whose expertise and insights I trust.

Off the top of my head, the National Geographic test strikes me as one of the better ones. and they're involved in compiling the National Genome Project. I do have some misgivings about some of the smaller operations, particularly ones with "heavy LDS involvement." Still, I think it's unlikely you'd "uncover any crazies" if you understand their confidentiality guidelines.

Thanks, Cabbie.

Sincerely, though, I'm not going to get a DNA test, so I won't need to contact Simon. I appreciate your support, though.

Glad to know you're still around.

My son was part of the early National Geographic testing due to his native American mother.

I wouldn't trust some of these tests where they tell you what country you're supposedly from. People migrate and just where is the line drawn? 100 years? 500 years? 1000 years or more?

My ancestors have lived on American soil for over 500 years. To have a test say 20% Dutch means nothing to me. The tests never say American.

The National Geographic test gave us migratory routes and dates. I found that more interesting than x percent British and y percent Chinese etc.

I've had my genetics profiled for cancer research and heridity for familial purposes because I've had breast cancer, so it was covered by my insurance. Otherwise the cost would have been prohibitive for me to afford.

I did the DNA test for genealogy purposes because I want to know where I came from. That's a primal drive for me that overcomes my other fears or reservations about the other potential uses or misuses of the DNA bank. My curiosity overcame my doubts. I've found relatives I didn't know I had because of it. And learned more about my ancestry. For me, that has been a good thing.

Plus, I can now confirm that I was not adopted (I had a childhood fantasy that I was an adopted child of my parents, because I was so different from my family. I didn't see how we could be related. My third grade teacher sang my praises to my parents - so much so they nearly sent me off to live with my power couple aunt and uncle in Silicon Valley to be given extra advantages because of my potential. When that didn't materialize I was stuck growing up where I did. It turned out for the best in the end, but any advantages were outweighed by disadvantages instead.)

I've been studying (lightly) my genealogy and family history for the past eight years. It is a history lesson and a trip on the Wayback Machine to be able to learn where you came from or rather who you came from. The DNA test adds to that IMO, and supports the ancestry/genealogy findings - with some surprises of its own.

Amyjo, that's pretty cool information you shared about the positive effects of taking a DNA test. Thank you so much for letting me know.

I got the notion while growing up that I, too, was adopted. I demanded to see my birth certificate (which, I know now, would NOT have shown whether I was adopted.)

My parents refused to let me see my birth certificate - I have no idea why. But it reaffirmed in my little brain that I was not related to my often-difficult mother.

I have inherited more traits from my father's family anyway, but the breast cancer came from my mother's side of the family. All kinds of cancer galloped through their side of the family.

toto, I'm with you.

DNA is very personal information that can and will be used in ways you cannot control. They would have to pay me a LOT for me to consider it.

I am not thrilled at the direction everything is going with tracking and selling everyone's information. Everything feels invasive and set up to use me or sell my every move.

Anyone who thinks insurance companies, law enforcement, every type of pharmaceutical company or advertiser are not chomping to get this information is naïve. It's a big So What to me (meaning I'm not going to do it).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2019 09:39PM by dagny.

I saw a news story on TV where a twenty year old murder case was resolved because the murderer's relative did a DNA test more than twenty years after the murder case was closed. Somehow, a computer search by police found some distinctive marker in the DNA of the murdere's relative. The person who had their blood tested was unknowingly related to the murderer which then led to the police to someone who they knew was acquainted with the victem. Then the murderer's DNA was a full match to the dna from the crime scene. If the murderer's relative wouldn't have just happened to have a dna test done, the case would have never been solved.

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw a news story on TV where a twenty year old
> murder case was resolved

Yes! I saw that too!

Also a man who is tracking down former US military who have offspring in Vietnam that they didn’t know about or couldn’t find.

The thing with that murder case was the suspect had never been arrested for anything ever, if he had his own dna would have been taken and been in the FBI database.

Nowadays the Supreme Court has upheld the states rights to collect dna on almost every type of arrest, but if you’ve not been arrested you won’t be there. But your brother or uncle may be and that’s how they can link someone even to these very old murders.

That particular man had viciously killed, got away with it, was well known and successful in that same town he murdered the girl, for twenty years.

F.Y.I. https://www.smarterhobby.com/genealogy/best-dna-test/

https://isogg.org/wiki/List_of_DNA_testing_companies

I've been getting an ad for Crigenetics DNA testing in my Facebook feed for a couple weeks now. So I went online to research its legitimacy. It's a wannabe to Ancestry, 23 and Me and the other prominent ones on the market.

Yet, when researching its reputation it comes up as a dishonest, and less than ethical company to do business with.

So beware. Not all DNA testing companies are the same!

Was searching on google and I found that this piece was a really great article on the Best DNA Testing Ancestry kits: https://www.dnatestingguides.com/. Looks like they got some PhDs to do some research for them as well. Pretty cool. Personally though, I like 23andme better than Ancestry, but they have a pretty in depth review on the differences between the two as well.

I had a birth cousin contact me on my DNA website because he was searching for his birth family a couple of months ago, give or take a few weeks.

Long story short, I was able to match him to his birth parents !!!! Talk about exciting.

So now he's been in contact with one of my first cousins who is his birth aunt. She is a retired English teacher who was able to fill him in on most if not all his family history on his dad's side of the family. As for his birth mom, she was able to at least identify her for him.

If not for the DNA match he still wouldn't know where he came from. Thanks be to the state we were born and its closed adoption system. (Because of the Mormon griphold on it!)

Mine was 23 and Me I did two years ago for Mother's Day. I thought it was comprehensive until it revised its findings several months ago, which turned its original findings upside down lol. Now I'm mostly Swiss. Two years ago I was mostly British. LOLOL.

I think they would have to do a more intensive background check on the DNA part , like a redo or a different type of testing, if something as serious as a crime.
I still am nervous as far as meeting an unknown relative, especially if you don’t know for sure they really are related. I have relatives on my mom’s side that weren’t to be trusted when they were growing up, nothing dangerous though.
My dad was adapted. He doesn’t know anything, only his parents last names ( they weren’t married) and his birthdate and place.
His mother had a German surname , which we all assumed was just German. We found out later, after different DNA test that he /I had European Jewish.
He died before we knew about these sites. We never will find out for sure who his true relatives are, since he died before we could have him tested.
I and my sister compared our results with my mom’s, which I did Have done.
We eliminated the relatives that showed up on ours and hers , as from her side, and the other relatives that were only on our side ( not my mom’s) as from dad’s side.
Those relatives were from the same state as he was from and the border states, which was neat.
His side was from Southern Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Poland, Russia, Ukraine , as they weren’t on my moms'.
I’m just nervous to contact any of them, waiting for them to contact me first.
It was worth it , just to know what I am from his side , finally!
I’m interested in the Jewish part, as my mom got Jewish too, but at a lower %.
A couple of older relatives in their 90’s , on her side,had 15%,next to her 6%.
I got 16%, weird.

My maternal uncle got 30% Ashkenazi compared to my 12%. I've wondered what my mother's might've been had she taken her DNA before she died?

My grandma was half Ashkenazi, that much I'm certain. So mom should've had similar amount as my uncle, unless males get a different pro rata share from the females from the mitochondrial and father's side of the Jewish DNA.

That part flusters me.

My children might have more Ashkenazi than myself, because their paternal grandmother was a Warsaw ghetto orphan rescued by most likely Irena Sendler, who saved app 2,500 Jewish children from the ghetto during the Nazi invasion of Warsaw.

She was adopted into a Catholic family and passed over by the Nazis when they did their sweep through the city claiming she was their own child.

It probably doesn’t matter to much as far as personal privacy goes, whether you get tested or not. If you sister or brother or aunts etc are getting tested they can get to you easily from there, just the way they did with that murderer. And once they ID him as a suspect they have the right (in my state) to swab him and confirm.

Not to be a downer here but if all you relatives are doing theirs....you won’t really be anonymous, whether you participate or not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2019 12:09AM by mel.

Does this mean I have to move the bodies?

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does this mean I have to move the bodies?

Oh Babs! What secrets you might share!!!

You are correct. These companies are building up a DNA database in much the same way Facebook was used to create a facial recognition database.

Health companies will be one customer. Those who want to create an authoritarian police state, another.

I appreciate all the privacy concerns and agree that's a good reason to not have it done.

That being said, I had my DNA tested by Family Tree DNA, 23 and Me, and Ancestry. I wasn't aware National Geographic was doing testing, and I might consider going to them as well.

I had all the testing done because I'm interested in family history. It's a bit ironic. The rest of my family is Mormon (but not assholes about it). I'm the gay apostate and I'm the one most interested in family history.

I had DNA testing done to check the accuracy of the of my family tree. Or more accurately, to uncover family secrets that aren't included in the family tree. I thought that surely someone somewhere in the past wasn't faithful to their spouse. But to my great disappointment I didn't uncover any SubSaharan African DNA, no Eastern European or Ashkenazi DNA. My ancestry as determined by all three sites was pretty much exactly what all the family records said it should be. So if someone in the past cheated they did so within their own ethnic group.

As I said, I'm interested in family history. But not for the inspiring, "faith-promoting" stories. I like all the quirky stories that fall outside the expected Mormon storyline. One of my favorites is the great-grandfather who divorced my great-grandmother on the grounds that (among other things) she "threatened to knock his brains out with a teacup." Now that's the sort of story that makes all those hours of research worthwhile!!!

What's a passing grade?