DNA Testing - Why Not

[supermoussi]

If someone were to take a 'top of the range' DNA test, would the results tell them that there is, for example, a person living in Switzerland, three in Yorkshire, 50 people living in various states of America, and 10 in NSW Australia, who all have close matches?

That is indeed the sort of thing you can get an idea of. At the moment a small fraction of Europeans have been tested but as time goes by the numbers will increase and we will get a much better picture of how we are all connected.

Would they tell you how close the matches are

Yes. At least with your paternal DNA (known as Y-DNA) anyway.  Y-DNA mutates over time so you can estimate how far back you share a common ancestor with someone else by the number of differences between your results.

would you be able to make contact with these potential matches?

If they have chosen to be contactable, yes, the DNA companies usually provide a means to send messages.

[supermoussi]

Regards from the "lump" Lookin2

Hi Lookin2, I wasn't specifically meaning you, sorry if you took it personally.

Research shows that on a per capita basis, Europeans and British genealogists are much less likely to have this testing done.  I wanted to know why.

A variety of reasons:-

1) Money - GDP per capita declines across Europe as you head east and south. With recent events even NW countries are feeling the effects of the "Vampire Squid".

2) France has privacy laws relating to their custom of having a spouse and a lover, I think enacted by former President Mitterand. Presumably they are concerned that a lot of family disputes would be started if the French could compare their DNA.

3) the Mormons/Church of LDS have driven the interest in genealogy in America through their beliefs of ancestor research. Their interest has had a trickle down effect on non-Mormon Americans but to a much lesser extent on non-Americans.


One specific point I would make is that most people will find the paternal (Y-DNA) and maternal (mtDNA) DNA tests useful, but the autosomnal ones are much less clear cut.

For example most people who are British as far back as they can trace will often find they are told they are typical European if they take a "Genetic makeup" autosomnal test. "Tell me something I don't already know."

And for the more recent autosomnal tests that claim to link people connected since abt. 1800 the business model of the test only really works for people that can't trace their ancestors on paper to 1800 (who are often Americans and adoptees). i.e. someone pays for the test and in return they are told who they match in the testing company's database so that they can work out how their papertrails link up.

In the case of many Brits who can already trace their ancestors back to 1800 on paper taking this sort of test is a waste of money as they will not find out anything more than they already know. Why should they give both money and the information they already have (their papertrail and DNA) to someone else? The economics just don't make any sense. If testing companies want this information they should be paying us Brits for it.

[Nick29]

And for the more recent autosomnal tests that claim to link people connected since abt. 1800 the business model of the test only really works for people that can't trace their ancestors on paper to 1800 (who are often Americans and adoptees). i.e. someone pays for the test and in return they are told who they match in the testing company's database so that they can work out how their papertrails link up.

In the case of many Brits who can already trace their ancestors back to 1800 on paper taking this sort of test is a waste of money as they will not find out anything more than they already know. Why should they give both money and the information they already have (their papertrail and DNA) to someone else? The economics just don't make any sense. If testing companies want this information they should be paying us Brits for it.

Well, I can trace my paternal ancestors back to 1800, and I've taken autosomal and Y-DNA tests.  Why would I want to do that ?   Because, when you go back beyond 1841, it is very difficult to establish family relationships.  My g.g. grandfather was born abt 1805, and he lived in (what is now) part of SE London, but what was then a small town in Kent.  The earliest I can place him in the area is in 1833, when he got married, but the town has about 8 or 9 families with the same name who share both the same surname and the same occupation.  These families all seemed very close, but I can't work out whether they were close because of family ties, or if they all shared the same profession.  I'm also fairly sure that the families didn't originate from the town, and I think they originally came from Middlesex, and Middlesex covered just about the whole of the northern part of what we now call Greater London. Hopefully, DNA tests might throw some light on where they originally came from.  This information may not be instantly available, but might come to light as more people in the UK take the tests.

Why should they give both money and the information they already have (their papertrail and DNA) to someone else?

Well, to me, genealogy is all about sharing information with others.  Without the tireless (and often unpaid) work of people who indexed and digitised the censuses and BMD registers, let's face it, not many of us would have got very far.  It's all very well and good to sit in front of a PC and gain access to 1000's of ancestral records, and then pat yourself on the back and tell yourself what a clever person you've been, when really the only value you've put in is to pay a couple of hundred quid to one or two genealogy web sites, and some BMD certificates which you found via those sites.  Whilst it would be wonderful to be able to do the same thing with a DNA database, with everyone getting tested free, with cheap access, the reality is that DNA testing is time-consuming to perform, and therefore quite expensive, so it's not going to happen, but it is getting steadlily cheaper.  A DNA test is never going to completely unravel anyone's family tree, and it would be foolish to assume otherwise, but it is another useful tool.

[flipflops]

Firstly I'm sorry to say I'm replying without having read the entire thread (finishing off my Christmas cards can not be delayed much longer  ).

Not having a related male about the place YDNA isn't an option but I've had the MtDNA and FF test done. The FF test  has given me 90 matches most of whom seem not only to be in the USA but would seem to have families who've been there for hundreds of years which seems a bit strange for the ones who are estimated to be 3rd - 5th cousins (the closest I have so far).

Unfortnuately, my paper family history has several 'grey' areas , so I can't provide a full list of names, even in the most recent 150 years I'm at least three lines short, and this is where I think DNA has the most exciting possibilities for many of us.

When the MtDNA test comes back (hopefully in a few days) I hope to be able to at least narrow down some matches down to my maternal line, which is my chief area of interest. Meanwhile, the origin bit of the FF test showed me to be 90 odd percent Orkanian and the rest middle eastern, so maybe I don't have the mishmash of ancestry that I'd always been led to believe

[mike175]

At present I can see no convincing reason for taking a test myself, apart from an altruistic one.

If I had discovered a potential link with someone that could be proved by DNA I would be happy for both of us to take a test . . . provided they had enough well-researched data! However, having seen some of the rubbish that passes for research in some online family trees I have a suspicion that I could finish up none the wiser and a lot poorer.

Just knowing I am related in some way to various people around the world has no meaning for me. I already know that.

Mike.

[Nick29]

Actually, my grandfather's brother emigrated to the US via Canada in 1885, and I'm already in contact with a few of his family in the US.  It will be interesting to see if FTDNA throws up any links to them 

[nickgc]

Good points a couple of posts above Nick29.  And let's hear it for altruism mike175.  I have a fully developed genealogy back to 1800 and several lines past that.  Unfortunately, my direct paternal line is one that ends with a loud bang at about 1800, with several possibilities for predecessors.  High probability of being English, and high probability of being a man who came to America from Yorkshire in the late 1600s.  But I need 2 or 3 generations I don't have to prove this connection.  Lots of work with documents and a little help from DNA has brought me to this point, and a strong DNA connection to descendants of the Yorkshireman's family who stayed in England would solidify the link.  Conversely, finding current descendants with a known paper trail that DON'T share any DNA with me would let me cast aside  this possibility.

So I admit it:  I have a vested interest.  But then, a lot of us do.

Nick

[flipflops]

Not everyone has a solid paper trail, although in the end it's always a personal decision as to what we are prepared to accept as proof anyway.

In the past I've had 'help' from other researchers who've 'given' me details, which, when I've gone to check them, seem to have merit only in that, for example, it's the only possibility on the IGI even though it's miles away from my research area - possible? Yes, but I need more than that to include it in my tree.

As a person who takes a look at online family trees, I was intrigued to find one of my more recent ancestors that featured on other peoples' trees not only to have been given a maternal line different to the one I have (confirmed by BMD certificate) but to have FIVE different alternatives on five different trees - and unless they have information unavailable to me - they're all wrong

I can't say as yet where my FF research will lead me. My suspicion is that I'll need to wait for more UK matches. In the meantime I'm contacting people who share a block of 10cm or more identical segments, to see if between us we can deduce our common ancestor, and in the meantime hoping that somehow, someway I can obtain forensic Y-DNA.

[nickgc]

That sounds like a good way to do it flipflops re the 10 cM or greater match.  I hope you have also send your raw data (zipped) to GEDMatch so you expand your base to include both FTDNA and 23andMe customers.

On paper trail I steer clear of anyone who says "see my tree on ancestry".  Regardless of their original intent, some can't resist adding suggested relatives.  If you point out they have a great grandfather living 118 years and they might want to double check it, they are as likely to quit communicating with you as thank you.

After 20+ years I have fewer than 1000 people in all lines for my children; about 700 for my line and 300 for their mom's.  I seriously question how well done a tree with 85,000 can be documented.

Nick