This article is food for thought if you’re pondering jumping on the DNA train:

https://globalnews.ca/news/5254570/ancestry-dna-tests-information/

Excerpts from article:

“Spit in a tube, and we’ll tell you your past — and, perhaps, your future.


“That’s the pitch behind many of the direct-to-consumer DNA tests on the market today, which offer to trace your ancestry and spot any genetic mutations that put you at risk for cancer.


“But what many of these testers don’t tell you is how much they want your DNA — and how much your $130 test is actually worth to them.


“Your DNA has become a commodity in itself, and ancestry companies are storing it in databases that can be used to develop expensive new drugs, study hereditary diseases, increase insurance premiums or even track down potential criminals.


“Even if you’re willing to take the risk and make your information available … you are dragging along your family members,” Fullerton [Professor of Bioethics at the University of Washington] said.


“[The] affordability [of the test] has triggered a booming DNA-testing industry dedicated to helping you find long-lost relatives and ancestral ties to faraway countries. Newer tests can also spot mutations that put you at risk of developing cancer or identify genes that respond well to certain drugs.


“AncestryDNA is currently sharing its database of 14 million customers with a Google subsidiary for longevity research. The company 23andMe has a deal with GlaxoSmithKline, a major pharmaceutical company, to develop “novel treatments and cures based on genetic insights from the consented 23andMe community.” The company says approximately eight million of its 10 million customers have opted into its research program.


“… your DNA can be used against you in a variety of ways. For example, an insurance company might want to boost your premiums if you have a mutation linked breast cancer, and the FBI might want to check your DNA against its cold-case database, just to see if you’re a partial match.


“Genealogy enthusiast Leah Larkin says ancestry companies are doing a lot of good with their data. She says they help reunite families and give pharmaceutical companies the tools they need to create new life-saving treatments.

“However, she also acknowledges that these companies pose a risk to personal privacy, both for their customers and their customers’ families.

“No one can guarantee that anything on the internet is never going to get hacked,” she said.

“If you want absolute privacy, I would say don’t do a test,” Larkin said.


“Caulfield [Professor of Law at the University of Alberta] says the benefits of getting a DNA test often don’t outweigh the risks, particularly when it comes to getting screened for cancer.

“There is a huge amount of variability between these direct-to-consumer testing companies,” he said.

“People should view it as recreational science and go in with a skeptical eye.”


---


I haven’t heard that term before: ‘recreational science’. Interesting.

I am curious and have thought of doing a DNA test. I’ve read about the forays of others into this new fun thing. I’m hazy on the details of how it works. It’s not like slogging through parish records to winkle out long lost relatives any more? Or do you still need to do both sides of it? Genealogy research even if you do the DNA testing? That seems to make more sense. I don’t think I care if they were to use my DNA to catch a criminal, even if related. But I do care what it’s used for in other ways. It seems like giving up total control over your very being. Perhaps that’s not the case but the idea is still new. Maybe, like many things, even if it proves intrusive we will accept that aspect of it. But I can see how some view it as a slippery slope – to where, who knows. I don't think I like the idea of my DNA still floating around on earth long after I am gone. Maybe they could clone me from my cells sometime in the future and then Zombie Nightingale would again walk the earth, long after I will be happy to be gone from it. The idea does not appeal.

I noticed the term ‘recreational science’ though, used by the Law professor. Thought someone here might have a viewpoint on that characterization. Sounds fun but not scientific. That about sums up how I see the DNA testing craze right now. Too new maybe. Or maybe I need more info. Either way, I’m holding off on getting a test. Still have the impulse, though, to do it. For fun. Not science.

Someone gave my exmo brother a DNA test as a gift. A TBM cousin I wanted to avoid was then able to confront him and ask for contact information. She was a full time elder missionary who was going to funerals to harvest info on exmo relatives and I had hoped I'd dodged her attention after a few unwanted interactions.

But she started sending emails to my brother trying to get to me through him and she tried to do mind reading on me and get him on her side.

I assume that she'll pull this stunt with other relatives eventually and continue to use this brother as a weapon if she can.

I don't like this aspect of DNA testing, not one bit!

Spewing forth DNA is definitely a recreational science.

In the meantime, I'll offer my insights on your article. Despite its label, "International Global News," is strictly a local operation from your neck of the woods. (If you want to Google that one, use quotation marks to find anything useful)

The two "players" with the largest databases, Ancestry.com and 23andMe, both have strong LDS ties (Ancestry.com is right next to the building with Will Bagley's office, BTW), and it's a stretch to label their conclusions "science" at all.

I think the following is spot on even if the source is "marginal":

>>“There is a huge amount of variability between these direct-to-consumer testing companies,” he said. (quoting a "professor of law," seriously)

As for the term "recreational science," I think that's applicable to a lot of "hobbies"; certainly it applies to the aquariums and tropical fish I maintain.

Thanks Nighty... I was considering having it done but now

I think not.

I'll just stick with what I've already discovered through

my genealogy.

Catching serial killers by linking their DNA via relatives through DNA databases has been a good use of DNA testing.

An adoptee at birth who is related to my family by DNA contacted me through 23 and Me recently, in an attempt to locate his birth parents. He'd waited a lifetime to make that match because of a closed adoption state where he lives and an adoptive mother that asked him not to search while she was alive. He honored her request, but enough was enough. He was 56 when we met and I was able to match him to his birth father. I introduced him to his aunt, who has provided him with his family history including who his birth mother is. He and his wife are ecstatic, over the moon with their newfound family history.

The Golden State serial killer was brought to justice by use of genealogical DNA testing via relatives tracing it back to him.

Many cold cases have been solved the same, as well as other serial killers from decades ago by the same use of DNA.

There is more potential good that can come from it that outweighs the negatives IMO. Let's hope there will be counter measures set in place that will prevent abuse of DNA like there are for other personal use of our information.

As for my own DNA testing, if I hadn't of done mine I wouldn't have been able to verify my Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. I used to wonder if I was adopted because my mom used to say I was only my dad's daughter whenever they got into an argument. I wasn't hers, I was always only his. By doing my DNA I was able to confirm I belong to both of them, whether I like it or not. My mother's brother had his done on 23 and me, and we share a proportionate % of DNA accordingly, including the Ashkenazi gene.

Nor would I have been able to confirm I had a Native American ancestor other than through my genealogy without the DNA. It was confirmed through the 23 and Me, and it was on my uncle's DNA as well. The name is also confirmed on our genealogy tree, so it was not a mistake of the Mormon or Anglican family history. It's also shared on the maternal and paternal lines (same ancestor.)

Add to that 23 and Me recently as of this year revised my findings (not my uncle's.) And now I've learned that I'm nearly 40% Swiss! Which I would not have known were it not for doing my DNA testing. The Mormon genealogy had muddied the genealogy for my Swiss ancestors. It wasn't until a couple of weeks ago when a LDS cousin of mine sent me her genealogy and that of her late Deist genealogist husband - also my cousin through the same branch of the same tree she and I are from ... that I learned is where my Swiss heritage comes from.

My Swiss ancestors came to America in 1700 to escape religious persecution like the Pilgrims did. They were Mennonites and Amish who immigrated to Lancaster, PA. In 2002 a DNA study was done out of Oxford, England studying 13 of the descendants of the same ancestor that my two cousins and I descended from, and that my now deceased cousin was a part of that study while he was still alive. He was a retired engineer then and a very astute genealogist (never Mormon.) He knew of the Swiss connection and has documented it in his book of genealogy.

The Mormons missed it altogether. Without doing my DNA I wouldn't have known it. Nor would I have known it were it not for 23 and Me revising their findings, or for my 86 year old cousin sending me her genealogy booklets she did last month just because, out of the kindness of her heart.

She is a descendant of the Pilgrims who came on the Mayflower herself. And I am descended from the Swiss ... and yet we are both cousins from the same ancestors connected by a common branch on the tree. We both grew up in the same small town a generation apart, and only met in the last several years because of our mutual relation and my becoming a Daughter of the American Revolution. Her husband was a Son of the American Revolution. She is a Daughter of the Utah Pioneers, and sent me a book of the history of her chapter about that recently. I may join that at some point. One doesn't need to be a Mormon to belong to that civics organization - it is international like the DAR and the SAR is.

But getting back to the DNA testing, it can be used for much good. I would think the ones who would be afraid of it may be those with the most to lose like the serial killers and most wanted fugitives etc.

I went through the BRCCA genetic testing last year for cancer research because my insurance covered it as I've had breast cancer, to see if it is genetically linked or not. If it was/is then I'd be able to tell my children, nieces and nephews that they are at risk for having it as well because I am genetically at risk. But because I was negative on all cancer risks for having the cancer gene, I was therefore able to let my children, nieces and nephews know that my breast cancer was not a hereditary trait passed down to me or by me to my children.

That was worth finding out IMO for my children and posterity.

There are pros and cons to genetic testing, either way.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2019 03:26PM by Amyjo.

> I would think the ones who
> would be afraid of it may
> be those with the most to
> lose like the serial killers
> and most wanted fugitives etc.


Good catch and a great heads-up! I'm going to start squinting suspiciously at Nightengale from here on out!!

And I'm definitely not doing it! It's bad enough with all the wanted posters still up in Post Offices across America!!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I would think the ones who
> > would be afraid of it may
> > be those with the most to
> > lose like the serial killers
> > and most wanted fugitives etc.
>
>
> Good catch and a great heads-up! I'm going to
> start squinting suspiciously at Nightengale from
> here on out!!
>
> And I'm definitely not doing it! It's bad enough
> with all the wanted posters still up in Post
> Offices across America!!

Hey, the more serial killers that DNA nets, the better for the rest of us.

Get em off the street. It may be the best use of DNA yet.

I certainly agree with your major point, but your minor point, that those who reject DNA testing have something to hide... I found that a little sketchy, and self-serving.

You old dog, you! :)

I'll be watching out for the guy with the suspicious squint. Or, more accurately, the guy who is squinting suspiciously.

It is a billion dollar industry that's here to stay.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2019 03:33PM by Amyjo.

You mean the money involved adds prestige and the glitter of righteousness? Like with insurance fraud, prostitution, loan sharking, auto theft, etc., etc.?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You mean the money involved adds prestige and the
> glitter of righteousness? Like with insurance
> fraud, prostitution, loan sharking, auto theft,
> etc., etc.?

It isn't going away because of naysayers.

Law enforcement will be using it for years to come. It's just getting started.

As for DNA use and testing, it is what it is. There will be people who want to know where they come from and their genealogy/ancestry.

For them, it is what will keep the DNA companies like Ancestry and 23 and Me in business.

As for hospitals and research, that is ongoing and will continue as well. DNA is science and it is BIG BUSINESS.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2019 03:40PM by Amyjo.

Try to find an old copy of Turtle Diary from 1986, if you can. Starring Ben Kingsley and Glenda Jackson. It fits with your definition of living life from the perception of a prison for some of its characters, and how Glenda and Ben Kingsley tried to change that for their aquarium friends, at the risk of running afoul of the law.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Try to find an old copy of Turtle Diary from 1986,
> if you can. Starring Ben Kingsley and Glenda
> Jackson. It fits with your definition of living
> life from the perception of a prison for some of
> its characters, and how Glenda and Ben Kingsley
> tried to change that for their aquarium friends,
> at the risk of running afoul of the law.

I will look that up, thanks. Both of rhese people are fine actors (leaving aside their political views for once)

Everywhere I turn in a city, there are cameras watching me. My phone's tracking me, my friends have electronic assistants which listen into them, cars have GPS tracking... Don't even get me on to social media which records your face and personal interests. It seems there is little you can do now without being watched. I'm glad I'm old enough to remember before all that. It's the old boiling a frog conundrum.

At the very least, these companies should pay you huge-ly to have your most personal information in their database. Instead, they somehow convince people to pay AND give up this information!

Your relatives who prefer privacy are sold out by relatives who participate. Most are not mass murders.

This information will be breached, just like all our other "protected" information. Insurance companies will know what areas to charge for risk of certain diseases, etc. There is a very dark side to this which am still having a hard time dismissing because we found a cousin or bad guy. I admire the willingness to help with research on some diseases (sold again to big pharma), but somehow I fear losing privacy might lead us on a more dangerous path.

We are the product being sold and we are paying them for the privilege? Somehow I don't think the information they give us is worth the ways the information can be used unfavorably.

If it were all fake anonymous identities, maybe I would feel differently, but my understanding is they want to know exactly who you are.

Agree, Dagny. Obviously, the medical research is a huge positive. Developing individual therapies, same.

But the dark underbelly keeps peeking out. Aspects are a little creepy. If not reminiscent of the worst uses imaginable.

I am intrigued and curious, as I said, about my ancestry. But as far as I know, the old-fashioned way, we are English, Irish, Scots. That's enough for me. For now.

I already get the creeps when Google pops up to ask "How did you enjoy your lunch?" [at local named restaurant"] or "Did you find what you were looking for at the [local] mall?" And I don't like them making money off me, even tangentially if I read or act upon their intrusive ads.

That is not progress or innovation that I welcome or need - my phone knowing where I am. It should be the other way round - always and forever.

Now imagine some unknown corporation harvesting my DNA and keeping it indefinitely. I don't wanna do genealogy quite that badly thankyouverymuch. There's an LDS family history library not that far away from me. If I can take the LDS contact, some day, I'll use that - again - if needed. They have a large quantity of British information (records, not bodily fluid). And, as I mentioned, there are all the records I need in England, more available now than ever due to the good old computer. Again - so "they" get my info and/or know what I'm looking up. But they don't put me in a test tube and scramble me around and keep me locked up forever. For who knows what purpose in future.

There. I have completely talked myself out of proceeding with "recreational" DNA testing. Sometimes curiosity really does kill the cat!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2019 04:10PM by Nightingale.

Right there with you. Curious but cautious.

I was just miffed at the comment that people who weren't pro-DNA testing probably had something to hide.

EOD: I take your point.

But I'm guessing, in this case, that Amyjo meant bad guys with things to hide don't want to get tested. She just didn't flesh out the thought completely.

Or something like that.

If she meant it how you read it, maybe that will be the next advertising blitz for the DNA testing companies: If you don't want to step up and spit for us the FBI might be wanting a word with you.

IOW, guilt us into acquiescing.

I have learned, although not quickly enough, not to jump on every bandwagon that crosses my path.

Especially those with preachers aboard, lol.

If you think that's bad, an entire nation was forced by law to hand over their DNA and then that database was aold to a company by their government. The Icelandic government claimed this waa all to do with healthcare, but the entire thing is sinister.

In other places, DNA databases are being collected by stealth or deception, much like social media is used to assemble facial recognition databases and tracking of movements.

https://www.wired.com/2000/03/genetics-scandal-inflames-iceland/