DNA, The Truth Will Always Come Out!

[Ravin]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

 

Wow.  This reminded me of the story my mom tells about being in the hospital after giving birth to me.  This was in the days of dorm style rooms. So the nurse comes into the large room with a large  cart of babies and starts handing them out to the moms.  My mom looked at the red headed baby she was handed and thought, ' this doesn't look like the baby I had yesterday'. She said about that time a woman in the bed next to her with long bright red hair starts hollering "this is not my baby!''.  The nurses fall all over themselves switching us and showing both moms that the tags on our ankles were correct, that they just got mixed up by one bed.  

I still tease her about her lack of observation skills though.  I mean I have almost black hair.  But mom was barely 20 years old and all alone....thank goodness for the experienced mom in the bed next to her.

 

Looking at that news story, and the pictures, really, except for the predominant hair colors in the families, they didn't look mismatched. They were similar enough in other features that I'm not surprised that the switch went unnoticed.

 

[gardenmom5]

to show there really is an unknown rate of unreliability in dna parental testing .  . . . 

https://pictorial.jezebel.com/one-person-two-sets-of-dna-the-strange-case-of-the-hu-1689290862

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/human-chimera-man-fails-paternity-test-because-genes-in-his-saliva-are-different-to-those-in-sperm-a6707466.html

my favorite is the woman who needed a kidney transplant and her sons were a not a genetic match for her.

when the different set of dna exists within the reproductive tract - a standard dna test will give the results of that person NOT being the parent, even when they are.   to verify it, requires serious genetic hunting, and still be hard to find.

 

[gardenmom5]

21 minutes ago, Ravin said:

 

Looking at that news story, and the pictures, really, except for the predominant hair colors in the families, they didn't look mismatched. They were similar enough in other features that I'm not surprised that the switch went unnoticed.

 

there were other things - e.g. not excelling in sports in a very athletic family, but all were minor and could be ascribed to normal variation.

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, maize said:

 

Occasionally I've been contacted by an adoptee trying to sort out bio family relationships; I'm happy to help if I can, typically by looking at in common DNA matches to figure out which of my family lines they may tie into. These have generally been people in the fourth cousin range so maybe a common third great grandparent. It is very similar to what I do in reaching out to fourth cousins in Sweden trying to help my grandma figure out who her own grandfather was and where he came from. 

 

how well have you been able to do that?  I've been contact by a 2nd/3rd cousin on 23&me who is trying to find bio parents along with his half brother.  I have zero idea about which lines any of my matches come from.  (my daughter doens't count)   I would love to get him on ancestry as then I could figure out a great-grandparent really fast. (and possibly even his grandparent).  

I've only recently replied to him, so I'm waiting to hear back.

[Lady Florida.]

21 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

to show there really is an unknown rate of unreliability in dna parental testing .  . . . 

https://pictorial.jezebel.com/one-person-two-sets-of-dna-the-strange-case-of-the-hu-1689290862

 

my favorite is the woman who needed a kidney transplant and her sons were a genetic match for her husband and her brother.  not her.

when the different set of dna exists within the reproductive tract - a standard dna test will give the results of that person NOT being the parent, even when they are.   to verify it, requires serious genetic hunting, and still be hard to find.

 

That was an interesting article. Thank you for sharing. 

[maize]

51 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

 

how well have you been able to do that?  I've been contact by a 2nd/3rd cousin on 23&me who is trying to find bio parents along with his half brother.  I have zero idea about which lines any of my matches come from.  (my daughter doens't count)   I would love to get him on ancestry as then I could figure out a great-grandparent really fast. (and possibly even his grandparent).  

I've only recently replied to him, so I'm waiting to hear back.

With 23andMe you usually need to contact matches and ask for family tree information. A few have family trees linked but most don't. If you can get a few people to respond and can figure out your common line you then have a way of figuring out other likely relationships, as there is a good chance that people who show up as in common matches with you and the known line person also tie into that line somewhere. The chromosome browser can also help. If I learn what my relationship is to someone I make a note so I can see at a glance.

You might take a look at the DNA Painter app, it's a tool to help you sort out and record which bits of your DNA come from which ancestor, based on known family relationships. Doesn't work for ancestry.com but works with data from all the other major DNA genealogy services. I'm using it to sort out my grandma's lines.

[maize]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I don't see what difference it makes if the cousin chooses to put their DNA in, when the real issue is other family members seeing the connection and coming to conclusions.  Or it could be illegitimate kids who never came to light, whatever. Individuals are not having to agree to this for it to impact them - it could be their family members making the decisions.  I don't think people have to be salivating over it either, it's simply a matter of it being there for them to see, and really not their business but they can see the implications.

I'm not convinced though, that there aren't nosy markers out there who would love that chance, as there are people like that in many families.

The fundamental questions o me are privacy - what does it mean when your information can be gleaned without you really agreeing, and also the potential power of a database like that.

You said before that you thought adopted children had the right to search for bio family information. DNA is often the best way to do that, but it won't work if relatives aren't in the database.

Yes that can infringe on privacy of birth family. I acknowledge the potential conflict of interest.

Do you think birth family privacy trumps adoptees right to know their own biological heritage?

[shawthorne44]

6 hours ago, IfIOnly said:

I was surprised to read in the news today about two Midwest women in their 70s who found through DNA testing that they were switched at birth. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two-midwestern-women-switched-birth-72-years-ago-are-reunited-n882941

 

This had been a fear of mine.   One reason I am very thankful of the current method of birthing in the hospital and baby staying in the room.  That way she was always with us.  

[shawthorne44]

2 hours ago, maize said:

...I really have never met anyone who did DNA testing because they were salivating to dig up dirt on known relatives....

I used to have a friend that bought tests as a present for friends just because she thought it was so cool.  I think she even offered me one, but I declined because I was uncomfortable with the expense.  

[Bluegoat]

24 minutes ago, maize said:

You said before that you thought adopted children had the right to search for bio family information. DNA is often the best way to do that, but it won't work if relatives aren't in the database.

Yes that can infringe on privacy of birth family. I acknowledge the potential conflict of interest.

Do you think birth family privacy trumps adoptees right to know their own biological heritage?

 

I don't think having the right to know means any way you go about it is ok - there really aren't any rights that are absolute in that way.  I'd like to see that kind of information recorded when an adoption happens and available to the child concerned at a certain point, perhaps with an option to indicate interest in contact if the parent also wishes it.  In a case where there is more a matter of infidelity or an unknown parent, that does leave the usual, old fashioned, options for tracking someone down.  The fact is always that sometimes, you can't find out what you'd like to know.  

 

[Murphy101]

6 hours ago, maize said:

 

I really have never met anyone who did DNA testing because they were salivating to dig up dirt on known relatives. None. 

 

If I was on speaking terms with my sister, I’d introduce you to one. But the thing is, she’d swear she isn’t one of them. And yet there’s a reason the entire family avoids her and lies about their information to her. Because that’s all she talks about in her I have juicy gossip way like she is the freaking CIA or something. And to make it worse, at least half the crap she thinks she’s dug up is BS. For example, many years ago she used her position at a medical facility to find out I’d had a D&C for “spontaneous abortion” so she tells family that I had a secret abortion and she printed all the medical info and put it in the genealogy file for record keeping. But that’s not an abortion in the sense that she claims. So is it a “true fact”? Yes. Is it Truth though? No. Not at all actually.  I had a miscarriage we were actually very upset about.  So now I act like I’m some kind of famous person when I go to hospitals and avoid any she works for like the plague. Can I use an alias? Yes I can. And I do because of her. And I kid you not I’ve told my close family and friends that if anyone tells her I’m dead or sick, I’ll come back from the dead for them for doing that to my dh and dc, bc she’d bother them to no end.

The tone of the OP sounded way too much like her to not throw my defenses up immediately.

And it’s very insulting to have the response be what seems like a salivating “oh I wonder what she has to hide that this bothers her?!”

One, I don’t really have anything awful to hide.  And being private person isn’t a sin of wrong  doing so much as a person who’s been screwed over enough to not be very trusting of her fellow humans. 

Two, it’s no ones business even if I did. 

I don’t really care if people check their own DNA. 

I don’t really care if people want to compare their own to another person who is also willing to share.

But there needs to be a way to sift out third parties that prefer more privacy and they don’t owe anyone a reason for their bodily autonomy. And you can’t get more personal bodily autonomy than your DNA. And even those who don’t agree with me can’t really claim to not agree with that. Because the entire reason they want to check their own DNA is because of the claim they have the right to know their own body makeup bc it’s part of who they are. Well, I don’t have to share who I am with other people and they have no right to that knowledge of me. 

[Murphy101]

I think limiting the DNA connections would be helpful. 

For example if it only told you if you had a parent/child or sibling connection.

So for example let’s say I put mine in and clicked that I wanted to find potential matches - I think the only matches it should allow to show are parent/child or sibling.

This would mean that if you are adopted and if your parent or siblings are open to knowing they match with you - then you’ll know bc they clicked a willingness to share.

It would also mean that parties are open to the chance of some secrets coming to light.

And it would mean that someone who isn’t open to the connection isn’t outed against their will by some other relatives DNA sharing.  

[maize]

42 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

The tone of your OP sounded way too much like her to not throw my defenses up 

I'm not sure what you mean by the tone of my OP, maybe you have me mixed up with someone else?

[Murphy101]

2 minutes ago, maize said:

I'm not sure what you mean by the tone of my OP, maybe you have me mixed up with someone else?

My apologies. It should have been “the op” not “your op”. I’ll correct it. 

[maize]

5 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

Individuals are not having to agree to this for it to impact them - it could be their family members making the decisions.  

Yes...that is how a lot of life works. A baby doesn't have to agree to being adopted either, but it certainly impacts them.

I totally get that sometimes things coming to light can hurt or cause problems for people.

Things staying in the dark can do that too 

[gardenmom5]

55 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

  she used her position at a medical facility to find out I’d had a D&C for “spontaneous abortion” so she tells family that I had a secret abortion and she printed all the medical info and put it in the genealogy file for record keeping.

did you ever report her to the medical facility?  even before hipaa - that should have gotten her fired.

[maize]

41 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I think limiting the DNA connections would be helpful. 

For example if it only told you if you had a parent/child or sibling connection.

So for example let’s say I put mine in and clicked that I wanted to find potential matches - I think the only matches it should allow to show are parent/child or sibling.

This would mean that if you are adopted and if your parent or siblings are open to knowing they match with you - then you’ll know bc they clicked a willingness to share.

It would also mean that parties are open to the chance of some secrets coming to light.

And it would mean that someone who isn’t open to the connection isn’t outed against their will by some other relatives DNA sharing.  

Limiting to immediate connections would be worthless for genealogy, which is what drives the majority of people who test and choose to have their results in a database. We need to connect with fourth, fifth and sixth cousins, because we are looking for information many generations back. The closest mystery I have tackled is trying to find out who the parents of my great great grandfather are; my other brick walls are even farther back.

As far as information about actual DNA goes, the folks I connect to in this search don't usually share more than 2-3% of my DNA. The most access I ever have to their data is that 2-3%, I don't know anything about the bits we don't share.

[Murphy101]

2 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

did you ever report her to the medical facility?  even before hipaa - that should have gotten her fired.

 

And be the recipient of her twisted wrath for getting her fired?  Yeah. No. 

But I’m at a different place in life now and absolutely would without hesitation if I knew she did it again. Though I’m not sure it would matter. Her position entails being the person this stuff gets reported to. Sooo. Who knows how that would go down. 

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

20 hours ago, Katy said:

Genetic discrimination of insurance companies is already illegal in the USA.

 

 

I wouldn't  count on this staying illegal.  

[brehon]

4 hours ago, maize said:

You said before that you thought adopted children had the right to search for bio family information. DNA is often the best way to do that, but it won't work if relatives aren't in the database.

Yes that can infringe on privacy of birth family. I acknowledge the potential conflict of interest.

Do you think birth family privacy trumps adoptees right to know their own biological heritage?

I think DNA just threw a huge spanner in the works of a legal right to know v. a legal right to privacy. 

Ethically, I think DNA is a huge sticky wicket. I don’t necessarily think either position trumps the other; I think they’re both equally important. The way the family in HH’s post chose to deal with the issue is, I think, a good model, though not one that can be universally applied, of course. 

 

[Murphy101]

2 minutes ago, maize said:

Limiting to immediate connections would be worthless for genealogy, which is what drives the majority of people who test and choose to have their results in a database. We need to connect with fourth, fifth and sixth cousins, because we are looking for information many generations back. The closest mystery I have tackled is trying to find out who the parents of my great great grandfather are; my other brick walls are even farther back.

As far as information about actual DNA goes, the folks I connect to in this search don't usually share more than 2-3% of my DNA. The most access I ever have to their data is that 2-3%, I don't know anything about the bits we don't share.

 

Alas. I don’t give care a bit about genealogy. And I have difficulty accepting the desire to know dead great great grandparents connections should trump the privacy of the current living generations.

[Murphy101]

Just now, Arctic Mama said:

I got lambasted on here awhile back but the geneology thing really weirds me out.  I can’t imagine caring who I’m related to beyond the people I have Christmas dinner with.  

 

Me too. And with the exception of dh and dc, I’m not related to the people I have Christmas dinner with so I don’t even care that much. Lol

[Faith-manor]

I am one of those who is generally not interested in genealogy at all, and considers family to have a deeper meaning than "related to". A lot of that has to do with the fact that we have some pretty bad people on my side and a couple on dh's side, that really, no one should have to know. It is that bad.

I have an aunt, someone who should have been locked up a long time ago with no opportunity to emerge, who gave up a baby. God forbid that poor girl ever find her bio mother. Seriously. Even her half sibs refuse to do DNA testing because they are so afraid she is out there hunting, and they don't want her to find this woman. Literally, it would be immoral for any of us from that gene pool to get into this 23 and Me or Ancestry thing, and put profiles out there because it is really that bad. I don't know this cousin, but I can tell you I feel a very strong moral obligation to her to not do anything that would allow her to figure out where her biological family is.

As soon as there is a good profit making scheme afoot to use all of these stored DNA profiles, you can darn well bet that 23 and Me and all the others will screw any previous privacy policies, and shaft their customers for the almighty dollar; they'll have a crack team of business lawyers that will find the loophole or the bean counters will tell them that what they lose in lawsuits will be less than the profits so "go for it". Car companies did that for years until some juries started awarding freaking huge settlements that made them think twice about killing people because it was more profitable than re-calling that model. I predict the first act will be accepting payment to disclose your information to your insurance company and employer. Employers in particular will use it against you in hiring practices. Have the gene for Alzheimer's? Nope. Not hiring you. Have the gene for a chronic illness that might make you miss work if you come down with it? Nope, not hiring you. And well, we all know what the insurance industry will do with it. And they won't care about the nuts and bolts of genetics, and gene expression.

So for me, there is no secret, no curiosity about previous generations that makes me want to get involved with that. I truly hope it works out okay for everyone who has already tested through for-profit, non medical programs like 23 and Me. 

[brehon]

Even though I have been interested in genealogy (non-DNA) for a long time, I completely agree with your reservations about future corporate use of people’s genetic information, Faith. 

[Scarlett]

3 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

 

If I was on speaking terms with my sister, I’d introduce you to one. But the thing is, she’d swear she isn’t one of them. And yet there’s a reason the entire family avoids her and lies about their information to her. Because that’s all she talks about in her I have juicy gossip way like she is the freaking CIA or something. And to make it worse, at least half the crap she thinks she’s dug up is BS. For example, many years ago she used her position at a medical facility to find out I’d had a D&C for “spontaneous abortion” so she tells family that I had a secret abortion and she printed all the medical info and put it in the genealogy file for record keeping. But that’s not an abortion in the sense that she claims. So is it a “true fact”? Yes. Is it Truth though? No. Not at all actually.  I had a miscarriage we were actually very upset about.  So now I act like I’m some kind of famous person when I go to hospitals and avoid any she works for like the plague. Can I use an alias? Yes I can. And I do because of her. And I kid you not I’ve told my close family and friends that if anyone tells her I’m dead or sick, I’ll come back from the dead for them for doing that to my dh and dc, bc she’d bother them to no end.

 

That is horrifying.  I mean, oh my word.  

[kbutton]

On 6/13/2018 at 7:37 PM, Jean in Newcastle said:

As far as my dna goes, if I am suspected of a crime, they can get a court order for my dna.  They can then try to match it to whatever they have collected from the crime scene.  I hope that it is destroyed if I am ruled out as a suspect, but I do not know what happens to it.   (Since this has never happened to me this is based off of what the internet tells me, not personal experience.  ?  ) 

3

I don't think any evidence from a crime scene is destroyed, and I think that at any point, all DNA tested goes into a database whether the contributor was cleared or not--the guilty and innocent together. I think that is why some people refuse to give up DNA without a court order just to "clear their name" or "help an investigation." I could be wrong, but I get a strong impression that is the case.  

As far as people talking about nefarious uses of these databases, I think it's just as likely that in the future as DNA testing becomes less and less expensive and they have more health data they can match it to, we'll all be expected to pony up with DNA as a normal screening process for insurances and things like that unless there are some seriously robust lawyers and lawmakers who can manage to keep things private. It's also come to mind that the Nazis didn't need DNA to examine genealogies, living people, and public records to persecute millions. While I have concerns about the non-medical companies interpreting DNA and creating databases, I think that there are many ways for similar wrongs to occur even without those companies going rogue.

[gardenmom5]

2 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

 

And be the recipient of her twisted wrath for getting her fired?  Yeah. No. 

But I’m at a different place in life now and absolutely would without hesitation if I knew she did it again. Though I’m not sure it would matter. Her position entails being the person this stuff gets reported to. Sooo. Who knows how that would go down. 

I hear you.  when I was a teen, I really wanted to report my brother's grow operation/dealing to the cops.  I was living in that house, I had no choice, and  it was having a very negative impact upon my life.   my mother was too much of a doormat to do anything, even though she didn't like it.

I was afraid of what my GRANDMOTHER would do to me! '

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

t into this 23 and Me or Ancestry thing, and put profiles out there 

just so you know, 23&me is not very useful for genealogy.   they started as medical (I've done it for medical with my dr), they only show your matches IF you want to share

[gardenmom5]

On 6/13/2018 at 2:31 PM, Scarlett said:

Wait.  I am confused.  I thought the data bases gave you matches not the exact dna reading of anyone except yourself.

23&me only shows the segment of the person you match.

ancestry can't.  though they can show "common" matches.  (which has been helpful with narrowing down my walls.)

On 6/13/2018 at 2:32 PM, regentrude said:

For example sell the database to health insurance companies so they can structure their premiums or deny coverage based on genetic predisposition to certain diseases?

pretty sure hipaa would cover this one.

[Pippen]

12 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

23&me only shows the segment of the person you match.

ancestry can't.  though they can show "common" matches.  (which has been helpful with narrowing down my walls.)

pretty sure hipaa would cover this one.

What hippa is supposed to cover, and what it does in reality when human error is factored in is another story. Last week the paperwork that came home with me from the pharmacy had someone else's paperwork included. And we once had a home healthcare delivery addressed to one of our family members, but the box contained prescriptions intended for someone else in our neighborhood.

[gardenmom5]

16 minutes ago, Pippen said:

What hippa is supposed to cover, and what it does in reality when human error is factored in is another story. Last week the paperwork that came home with me from the pharmacy had someone else's paperwork included. And we once had a home healthcare delivery addressed to one of our family members, but the box contained prescriptions intended for someone else in our neighborhood.

the quote to which I was responding was talking about deliberate dissemination- not someone  making a huge blunder.  (for which they should be held accountable - even if it's just "more training".)

[IfIOnly]

A situation that likely wouldn't happen presently due to DNA testing availability, but one that did in the past and was discovered through mail in DNA tests: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-44242626

[Scarlett]

30 minutes ago, IfIOnly said:

A situation that likely wouldn't happen presently due to DNA testing availability, but one that did in the past and was discovered through mail in DNA tests: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-44242626

That is horrifyingly sad......

[IfIOnly]

23 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

That is horrifyingly sad......

It really is. I hope he is able to find missing Paul and his sister.