Edited (June 6, 2011): FINAL version of the paper available here.
Today at 1:15PM, the American Society of Human Genetics released the “ASHG Ancestry Testing Statement and Recommendations (pdf)” during a press briefing session entitled “ASHG Ancestry Testing Statement and Recommendations: Guidelines for Understanding the Issues and Implications Involved. The briefing session, held from 1:15PM to 2:15PM, is part of the 58th annual ASHG meeting in Philadelphia. The paper was drafted by the recently-appointed ASHG Ancestry Testing Task Force Committee.
Let me start my analysis by clearly pointing out my personal positions:
- After years of experience in this field, I am a proponent of genetic genealogy testing, a scientific endeavor that has been utilized by as many as 500,000 to 800,000 customers.
- I believe that education, not more government regulation, is the most efficient and appropriate answer to the issues raised by the authors of the paper.
- I believe that autosomal genetic genealogy testing is in its infancy and should only be used with the understanding that the results are only extremely rough estimates that are subject to change as the field develops.
With those personal positions in mind, and after reviewing the paper, I have a number of general concerns with the paper’s conclusions:
- There are statements in the paper about psychological reactions to testing results, including the conclusion that “[t]he occurrence of or potential for emotional distress in people and groups following receipt of conflicting information about their ancestry has been well documented.” Unfortunately, the statements are based on anecdotal stories or isolated examples rather than any systematic or scientific investigation of the reactions of individuals to the results of genetic genealogy testing. I am unaware of any systematic objective study that looks at the reactions of individual to genetic genealogy testing results (outside of the paternity test or health testing arenas). Indeed, a prior policy paper from the ASHG cites only a BBC documentary that examined the ancestry of three individuals of African descent and a newspaper article to support their conclusion that “[t]est-takers may…suffer emotional distress if test results are unexpected or undesired.” I would suggest that the Task Force, rather than assume that this “emotional distress” response to genetic genealogy test results has been well documented, conduct an objective study specifically tailored to analyze genetic genealogy testing. The difference between the results of genetic genealogy testing and the results of health or medical testing is so vast that drawing comparisons between the two is extremely problematic and potentially inaccurate.
- The paper muddles the distinction between Y-DNA/mtDNA testing and autosomal testing, even though the differences are huge. The results of Y-DNA and mtDNA tests are STR numbers, SNP designations, or differences from the CRS which are then used to estimate a haplogroup or compare with another’s results. Given the extensive data regarding haplogroup designation, the estimates are highly accurate. Additionally, a haplogroup designation implies only a very broad geographical origin many thousands of years ago; it is not an estimation of genetic ancestry, as the authors of the policy paper imply. Haplogroup designations have existed for more than 20 years and continue to be used by population geneticists and anthropologists. The results of autosomal testing, however, are estimations of genetic ancestry. These autosomal tests look at anywhere from 13 to 500,000 locations – out of billions – on the human genome and return percentages of ancestry based on those markers. Autosomal testing can be confusing to test-takers because customer often assumes that the percentages are final and represent an accurate picture of their entire genome.
- The authors mix the issues associated with the everyday genetic genealogy test-taker with the issues faced by very specific groups of test-takers. For example, Native American groups are concerned about the effects that genetic genealogy will have on group identity and membership. These same concerns have also been raised by lineage societies such as the SAR and the Mayflower Society. Any regulations that a group believes it needs should be at the level of the group, not at the level of the testing! Groups that have these concerns should themselves decide whether and how to use genetic genealogy results for membership and group identity (such as the DAR and Mayflower Society are doing); regulating genetic genealogy at the testing level is not the most efficient or appropriate way for these groups resolve the ethical and social concerns.
- There is mixing of the controversial phrase “direct-to-consumer” with genetic genealogy. Of course it’s direct-to-consumer, who else would the results go to? Surely the authors of the paper aren’t suggesting that genetic genealogy tests should be ordered and reviewed by a doctor or genetic counselor. That would be a ridiculous restriction.
- Although I am unaware of the composition of the ASHG Task Force, I hope that it is made up of a diverse group. Additionally, I hope that the Task Force is actively conversing with people outside the committee, including commercial testing entities, researchers, and customers of genetic genealogy in order to obtain a well-rounded view of the field.
Now, onto a few specific criticisms of the paper:
“Many people pursue genetic ancestry testing because they wish to find out more information about either the local populations or broad geographical regions in which their ancestors lived. However, the power of commercial genetic tests to answer such questions is limited, and the precision of the answer is often limited by the imprecision of the question. The limitations arise from the fact that every person has hundreds of ancestors going back even a few centuries and thousands of ancestors in just a millennium. There is thus enormous non-deterministic variation to the portion of the genome retained in a descendant from a given ancestor, with a rough expectation that it halves every generation. Consequently, genetic tests can access only a fraction of these ancestral contributions. The genomic segments contributed by a particular ancestor are far from all being uniquely identifiable, so even if one’s genome has those specific genome contributions, identification of particular ancestry is always uncertain and statistical. It is also unclear how well-inferred ancestry serves to predict the tested individual’s genotypes at untested loci.”
This paragraph largely deals with autosomal … Click to read more!
The 58th annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics is currently being held in Philadelphia.Â Today at 10:00AM there will be a session specifically about genetic genealogy entitled “The Social, Ethical, and Biomedical Implications of Ancestry Testing: Exploring New Terrain.”Â From the abstract:
“What is genetic ancestry and how does it relate to race and ethnicity? The development of increasingly cost effective genomic sequencing technologies and public interest in genetic ancestry has led to a dramatic flourishing of direct-to-consumer products and new approaches to biomedical research. In this session, panelists define the contours of this emerging landscape and explore the commercial, biomedical, social and ethical implications of this burgeoning category of genomic application. Panelists consider the following questions: What genetic ancestry information is available to consumers? How is genetic ancestry used in biomedical research? What implications do genetic approaches to ancestry have on social identity? What ethical and policy issues must be addressed in this changing landscape? Panelists provide perspectives from industry, medicine, cultural studies, and bioethics.”
The moderator of this session is Sandra Soo-Jin Lee of Stanford University.Â The panelists include Joanna Mountain who will talk about ‘New dimensions for direct-to-consumer genetic ancestry testing’; Kimberly Tallbear who will talk about ‘The genetic construction of indigeneity’; and Esteban GonzÃ¡lez Burchard who will talk about ‘The importance of ancestry testing and genetics in biomedical research’.Â Additionally, the moderator will discuss ‘Racing forward: The ethics of ancestry testing.’
I don’t like the mixing of the controversial phrase “direct-to-consumer” with genetic … Click to read more!
Nature has a brand new web focus on personal genomics (as of November 5th, 2008).Â And best of all, most of the articles are entirely free to access, download, and read!Â From the site:
“As the number of human beings with their genomes fully sequenced ticks higher and direct-to-consumer gene profiling companies push the limits of what medical genetics can do, the once fantastical notion that any given human can walk into a doctor’s office with his or her genome on a hard drive looks more and more like a reality. Still the question remains to be answered: how do we use this wealth information? In this Nature web focus we proudly present the challenges this approaching reality poses for technology, the legal and ethical confines of research, and the ability of genomics to translate into clinical utility.”
Here are just a few of the interesting news & opinion articles:
And unlike other bloggers who will undoubtedly mention these articles, I recommend that you read or peruse all the articles, not just the ones I happen to agree with!
In addition to the articles, Nature has a podcast (mp3) of special features on personal human genomes.Â And lastly, follow along as Nature blogs from the 58th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics in Philadelphia from November 11-15.Â It looks like this is going to be quite a meeting.
HT: tweet from attilacsordas – are you … Click to read more!
Image via Wikipedia Ötzi the Iceman is the popular name for a 5,000 year-old mummy discovered frozen in the ice of the Alps in 1991. Studies of the Iceman has revealed an immense amount of information about him, including details of his life, his death, and his culture. Although Ötzi’s mtDNA has previously been studied, researchers had only examined short segments which suggested that his mtDNA belonged to Haplogroup K. A new paper in Current Biology (subscription only darn it) details Ötzi’s full mtDNA genome for the first time:
"Using a mixed sequencing procedure based on PCR amplification and 454 sequencing of pooled amplification products, we have retrieved the first complete mitochondrial-genome sequence of a prehistoric European. We have then compared it with 115 related extant lineages from mitochondrial haplogroup K. We found that the Iceman belonged to a branch of mitochondrial haplogroup K1 that has not yet been identified in modern European populations."
The full sequence (which has been deposited in GenBank with accession number EU810403) was then compared to 115 published full mtDNA Haplogroup K sequences. The comparison suggests that Ötzi belonged to a previously uncharacterized … Click to read more!
(Jim Watson via Wikipedia)
As if there wasn’t enough to worry about during the genetic revolution, researchers have found a way to characterize redacted genetic sequences from whole-genome or large-scale sequencing.
Here’s how it works.Â Let’s say that Mr. X has had his genome sequenced, but doesn’t want to know the results of some genes known to influence the development or progression of Alzheimer’s Disease.Â So when he receives his genomic sequencing, these genes have been ‘redacted’, or removed from the data.Â This is exactly what James Watson decided to do when he received his data.
Characterizing Redacted Genes
However, researchers have characterized one of Watson’s redacted genes by examining the sequences surrounding the gene in question.Â … Click to read more!
Image via Wikipedia
This week I was quoted in the November issue of Wired Magazine about the use of autosomal DNA for genetic genealogy testing.
At “Adoptees use DNA to find surname,” Larry Moran at Sandwalk comments on my recent articles (here, here, and here) regarding the use of genetic genealogy (or genetic sequencing in general) test results to find unknown biological parents.Â Although Dr. Moran accuses me of being a “cheerleader” who is blind to any ethical concerns associated with using DNA to find biological parents, he obviously didn’t do his research!Â Less than a month ago I wrote this on the blog:
“For most people, being able to identify your own ancestors based on your own DNA poses few if any ethical dilemmas. However, what if your neighbor or your stalker or even law enforcement wants to use a sample of your DNA to identify your ancestors? Additionally, what if your living ancestor doesnâ€™t wish to be identified? Does the ancestor have that right, or is possible identification through genetic genealogy just one of the consequences of parenting a child anonymously or simply having sex with another person?”
In response to a write-up at Genome Technology, Discovering Biology in a Digital World wrote “Hey sperm donors, could DNA testing be hazardous to your wealth?“.
Blending Genetic Genealogy and Personal Genomics
Often, articles that discuss both genetic genealogy and whole-genome scans … Click to read more!
Image by gravitywave via Flickr
Last week I wrote about using genetic genealogy databases to identify someone’s surname (see “DNA Could Reveal Your Surname, Of Course.”)Â The article discussed results from researcher Dr. Turi King which suggested that there is a 24% to 50% chance that two men who share the same surname share a common ancestor through that name, with chances increasing if the surname is rare.
Somehow I completely missed “Adoptees use DNA to find surname“, an article at BBC News this June.Â Men who were adopted as children are using genetic genealogy databases in an attempt to identify their biological surname.Â This is Dr. King’s research in motion.Â Family Tree DNA, for example, has a project for Adopted people that is over 2 years old, and has a success rate of more than 30%, thanks in large part to their database … Click to read more!
Image via Wikipedia
New research from Mark Jobling’s lab at the University of Leicester suggests that Y-DNA can be used to determine a male’s surname.
I know, I know, this is obvious to anyone who is familiar with genetic genealogy.Â Just check out the many instances of this type of determination at ISOGG’s Success Stories website, for example.Â However, as you’ll see below, this research has resulted in some new and interesting information.
Dr. Turi King, who conducted the research, recruited over 2,500 men with roughly 500 different surnames to submit Y-DNA samples.Â The sample set included a group not sharing surnames as well as sets of men (between 2 and 180) who shared a surname (including recognized variants).Â She then typed 9 SNPs and 17 STRs.Â There’s much … Click to read more!
I just finished reading an article by Alondra Nelson in the journal Social Studies of Science entitled â€œBio Science: Genetic Genealogy Testing and the Pursuit of African Ancestryâ€ (Social Studies of Science 2008 38: 759-783).Â Dr. Nelson is Assistant Professor of Sociology, African American Studies and American Studies at Yale University.
This very interesting and insightful article aligns with my own premise, which I’ve stated previously, that receiving the results of a genetic genealogy test is only the beginning of the journey for any individual interested in their own identity or genealogy.
Based on her research in this area, Dr. Nelson writes about the complex interpretation of the results of genetic genealogy testing by African-Americans and black British.Â Rather than completely altering their preconceived … Click to read more!
The American Society of Human Genetics is having its 58th Annual Meeting in November.Â As I was looking through the meeting abstracts, I noticed that there were a number of abstracts that dealt with topics related to genetic genealogy.Â I thought some of you would be interested in getting an advance look at genetic genealogy research that will be publicly released and published over the next year or two.Â Although I didn’t include the whole abstracts for most of them, I did include a link for further investigation.Â (Note: I got this idea from Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog).
Interestingly, the first five abstracts all include researchers from the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, showing how much the Foundation is providing to the genetic genealogy community.
Also very interesting is the final abstract which argues that genetic … Click to read more!