Posted by:
SL Cabbie
(
)
Date: March 03, 2018 06:42PM
Praise be to the Google God for those of us in the know...
Here's a summary of some "reasonable sources" evaluating the current "DNA testing craze"; they're still from "popular sources" (as opposed to "tabloids"), but they are at least generally reputable.
One serious factor that's obvious to me is that having paid money for tests from outfits like 23 and Me or Ancestry.com will automatically create a "confirmation bias" in terms of one's own prejudices on the subject and how reliable the results are.
An overview, and then as promised, I'm going to get back to some serious science reporting on Native American migrations and how studying ancient DNA is a vastly different undertaking than what is being offered by the "saliva swabs" folks.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/23andme-is-terrifying-but-not-for-the-reasons-the-fda-thinks/This one's nearly five years old, ancient in terms of the information available, but it still offers a good deal of objectivity.
>>If there’s a gene for hubris, the 23andMe crew has certainly got it. Last Friday the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered the genetic-testing company immediately to stop selling its flagship product, its $99 “Personal Genome Service” kit. In response, the company cooed that its “relationship with the FDA is extremely important to us” and continued hawking its wares as if nothing had happened. Although the agency is right to sound a warning about 23andMe, it’s doing so for the wrong reasons.
I have no issue with using DNA findings to look for possible genetic disorders, etc. Given that one of my good friends suffers from Huntington's disease, and the incidence of alcoholism in my ancestry (that one still hasn't been "nailed down," folks, and trauma is a factor as well), I think this amounts to real progress. I am naturally nervous the information will be used by insurance companies, etc. for possible nefarious ends.
https://www.wcpo.com/news/national/how-accurate-are-in-home-dna-tests-like-ancestry-23andme>>Should you trust the results?
>>Dr. Anil Menon, professor of molecular genetics at the University of Cincinnati, said results can differ because of the database used by the companies.
>>Parts of the database are shared by the companies, but there are also parts that are different, Menon said. He said it’s important to remember there can be discordance with results, meaning one database shows slightly different numbers than the other database.
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-dna-test-23andme-ancestry-national-geographic-2017-4Just on general principles, I trust Nat Geo more than the other two, but this author notes:
>>Based on next-generation sequencing, National Geographic's test provides three ancestry reports:
>>Regional, which tells you where your ancestors came from more than 500 years ago. This didn't get into as many specifics in my case as AncestryDNA and 23andMe's tests did.
>>Deep, which shows your ancestors' migration patterns thousands of years ago.
>>Hominin ancestry, which tells you how much DNA you have in common with a Neanderthal.
Have fun, folks. I know Simon Southerton reported "problems" with his DNA testing, which were "inconclusive" if I remember correctly, and shoot, I could be persuaded somebody took a look at "who it was for," and decided that was the "prudent result" to offer.
I do know he'll laugh when he reads that part...