Which DNA testing kit do I want?

[math teacher]

I know next to nothing, but I want to learn. What do I need to know?

[maize]

Are you most interested in testing for health insight or for discovering family connections?

For health, 23andMe is good. For genealogy, Ancestry.com has the best database of users.

[DawnM]

I did both, but I was wanting to cover all of my bases to look for family.   I found the most family on Ancestry.

Edited May 8, 2022 by DawnM

[Katy]

The main thing to know is that people moved a lot throughout history. So the idea that the commercials promote, that you can correct your ancestry much through taking a test, is silly. It’s just a best guess. My “ancestry” has changed pretty dramatically since I first took the test. I’m more British, less Scandinavian, less native American, less African, more Indian, and more unidentified. Also probably due to 500 years of mixing, they do not have good dna from the Southeastern Native American tribes. That one in particular is in flux all the time. 

Here’s a similar video about how identical twins got slightly different results at all the companies: 

 

[Farrar]

22 minutes ago, Katy said:

The main thing to know is that people moved a lot throughout history. So the idea that the commercials promote, that you can correct your ancestry much through taking a test, is silly. It’s just a best guess. My “ancestry” has changed pretty dramatically since I first took the test. I’m more British, less Scandinavian, less native American, less African, more Indian, and more unidentified. Also probably due to 500 years of mixing, they do not have good dna from the Southeastern Native American tribes. That one in particular is in flux all the time. 

Here’s a similar video about how identical twins got slightly different results at all the companies: 

 

That makes me want my twins to both do it. One has, but the other one has not.

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, maize said:

Are you most interested in testing for health insight or for discovering family connections?

For health, 23andMe is good. For genealogy, Ancestry.com has the best database of users.

Yep this.  

[Scarlett]

49 minutes ago, Farrar said:

That makes me want my twins to both do it. One has, but the other one has not.

Yes, that would be really cool.

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

The main thing to know is that people moved a lot throughout history. So the idea that the commercials promote, that you can correct your ancestry much through taking a test, is silly. It’s just a best guess. My “ancestry” has changed pretty dramatically since I first took the test. I’m more British, less Scandinavian, less native American, less African, more Indian, and more unidentified. Also probably due to 500 years of mixing, they do not have good dna from the Southeastern Native American tribes. That one in particular is in flux all the time. 

Here’s a similar video about how identical twins got slightly different results at all the companies: 

 

Yes, the ethnicity is an estimate.  The Dna matches are 100% accurate,   But it makes a better commercial to talk about discovering your ethnicity rather than looking for a long lost half sibling.  
 

I have really enjoyed the discoveries I have made on Ancestry.  And helping other people is very satisfying to me.  

[Katy]

It would be a good lesson in how statistical analysis with constant new data changes constantly. One of the scientists they had discuss this figured there was a problem with the DNA analysis being contaminated. But no, they showed as identical twins when looking at raw data. The difference was that their analysis was run days or weeks apart. The bigger the database the bigger the difference. And it changed constantly. 

53 minutes ago, Farrar said:

That makes me want my twins to both do it. One has, but the other one has not.

 

[math teacher]

1 hour ago, maize said:

Are you most interested in testing for health insight or for discovering family connections?

For health, 23andMe is good. For genealogy, Ancestry.com has the best database of users.

Both, actually. 

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, math teacher said:

Both, actually. 

Then you should do both.  🙂

I have only done Ancestry but I keep intending to do 23 and me as well. 

[Scarlett]

Like most Americans  I expected to have some Native Indian in my dna.  According to ancestry, nope none.

And my DIL can prove from records she has more than 50% NA.  Ancestry puts it at 21%. 

[Katy]

5 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Like most Americans  I expected to have some Native Indian in my dna.  According to ancestry, nope none.

And my DIL can prove from records she has more than 50% NA.  Ancestry puts it at 21%. 

This is why a lot of the Southeastern tribes recommend members not take DNA tests. They intermarried with whites & blacks for 500 years. They could be full tribal members and only have trace DNA to prove it.

[Scarlett]

30 minutes ago, Katy said:

This is why a lot of the Southeastern tribes recommend members not take DNA tests. They intermarried with whites & blacks for 500 years. They could be full tribal members and only have trace DNA to prove it.

Why would they recommend they not take the dna test because of that?  The more that take the test the more accurate the data base becomes.  

[KSera]

If privacy is important to you, that’s a consideration. The direct to consumer testing companies are not bound by HIPPA. You can ask for your sample to be destroyed and your data deleted, but you don’t know to what degree your data has already been used by that point. 

[gardenmom5]

3 hours ago, math teacher said:

I know next to nothing, but I want to learn. What do I need to know?

Why are you testing?  the snps they run are different

Health? - 23&Me.   My ND's also can more easily use this DNA.

genealogy - ancestry.

I've done both - and have compared them side by side.  They definitely test different things.

there are other health sites you can run your downloaded DNA through to get health data.  Some are only available to medical professionals by subscription.

[Katy]

2 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Why would they recommend they not take the dna test because of that?  The more that take the test the more accurate the data base becomes.  

I don’t think they want people to know how little native DNA many of them have. It can wash out completely in 5-6 generations. 

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, Katy said:

I don’t think they want people to know how little native DNA many of them have. It can wash out completely in 5-6 generations. 

 Or it cannot be showing up because so few Native American are testing. Shrug. I don’t know for sure. But either way, it is what it is. It does not change the Indian benefits.

[shawthorne44]

20 hours ago, Katy said:

I don’t think they want people to know how little native DNA many of them have. It can wash out completely in 5-6 generations. 

Or how many outside of the tribe have it.  DH has NA ancestors from when a tribe kidnapped and raped/tortured his maternal ancestor.  The family got her back pregnant and basically a zombie for the rest of her life.  

[TechWife]

Remember that direct to consumer genetic testing results aren’t protected by HIPPA. They can and will monetize your data. This info is  buried in their terms of use. They are not legally bound to anonymize it before they sell it - because , not HIPPA compliant. It’s all well and good until your health insurance or life insurance company buys it and uses it to increase your premium and the premiums of your family members. Any privacy laws passed in the future regarding direct to consumer labs will not apply to data that has already been gathered and sold. As an aside, data gathered by Fitbit, Apple Watch and other similar devices and apps isn’t protected, either. 
 

https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/23-and-you-dna-privacy

Edited May 9, 2022 by TechWife

[Carrie12345]

Ancestry makes it easier to use DNA match relatives to “find” other people in family trees.  IME, 23andMe doesn’t have as many people looking to collaborate.

As for accuracy and “sectioning”, so to speak, Ds (Ancestry) and I (23andMe) have pretty darn good matched info across the two platforms.  Since his father came back 99% 1 thing, it’s pretty easy to look at my genetic participation. (I am 0% that thing, and only have 6 or 7 designations.)
A strict 50% of each of my things? No, but only off by a percentage or two, and Ancestry gives him less “broadly NW Europe” while 23andMe sticks some of my Scandinavian into that broader category. Slightly different ways of categorizing, but quite mathematically (and historically, based on what we know)accurate.

[HS Mom in NC]

Here's someone who did a comparison:

 

[gardenmom5]

On 5/8/2022 at 7:09 AM, Scarlett said:

Like most Americans  I expected to have some Native Indian in my dna.  According to ancestry, nope none.

And my DIL can prove from records she has more than 50% NA.  Ancestry puts it at 21%. 

It's all how DNA is dispensed through the generations.  I have neice/nephews - the amount of shared DNA varies considerably.

1dd and dudeling definitely got different DNA from dh. By genealogy, dh is 1/4 Armenian.  By DNA . . . of two kids 23&me tested, one - has mesopotamia, the other egyptian coptic.  (he has both.)

[livetoread]

None given the privacy concerns given above. I wouldn't do one unless I had a very compelling reason to do so. I know there is all sorts of info about me being collected and sold as we speak, but my dna is a bridge too far.

[Scarlett]

Privacy is an allusion y’all. But to each his own. 
 

 

[TechWife]

6 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Privacy is an allusion y’all. But to each his own. 
 

 

I am not willing to cede the concept of privacy. It is plain and simple that if one doesn't order a DNA test, then the results don't exist. We have some choice in the matter. Choose wisely, especially when it comes to your DNA.

Your DNA is not available unless you make it available or unless you are compelled to do so by a law enforcement search warrant.

[cabercro]

11 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Choose wisely, especially when it comes to your DNA.

I've seen people discuss doing DNA tests using throw-away email addresses or by using a fake name. Is anyone knowledgeable on how/if that changes the privacy concerns?

[TechWife]

3 minutes ago, cabercro said:

I've seen people discuss doing DNA tests using throw-away email addresses or by using a fake name. Is anyone knowledgeable on how/if that changes the privacy concerns?

Not one bit.

 

[KSera]

30 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I am not willing to cede the concept of privacy. It is plain and simple that if one doesn't order a DNA test, then the results don't exist. We have some choice in the matter. Choose wisely, especially when it comes to your DNA.

Your DNA is not available unless you make it available or unless you are compelled to do so by a law enforcement search warrant.

The thing that's makes these direct to consumer DNA tests that have no HIPPA compliance even more frustrating is that you don't have to do one yourself for a lot of info to be deduced about your own DNA if you have close relatives that run these. That feels unfair. And I can't figure out why so many people have just given up on even caring if they have privacy. I agree that we have very little of it right now, but I also find that to be a big problem, and many other countries have started turning that ship around. There seems to be no will here in the US to do the same. People just say "privacy's an illusion" and then continue to hand over all their personal information willingly so that corporations can make money from it.

[TechWife]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

...And I can't figure out why so many people have just given up on even caring if they have privacy. I agree that we have very little of it right now, but I also find that to be a big problem, and many other countries have started turning that ship around. There seems to be no will here in the US to do the same. People just say "privacy's an illusion" and then continue to hand over all their personal information willingly so that corporations can make money from it.

 

I attribute it to capitalism being the primary moral driver in the US. The economic system has become more important than the people that it is supposed to be serving, so now "we, the people" serve it, seemingly without question.

[DawnM]

On 5/8/2022 at 9:52 AM, Scarlett said:

Yes, the ethnicity is an estimate.  The Dna matches are 100% accurate,   But it makes a better commercial to talk about discovering your ethnicity rather than looking for a long lost half sibling.  
 

I have really enjoyed the discoveries I have made on Ancestry.  And helping other people is very satisfying to me.  

And the commercials where the grown child finds out their dad is not really their bio father due to Mom's trist with the UPS guy doesn't seem to sell DNA kits well either.

[Scarlett]

51 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I am not willing to cede the concept of privacy. It is plain and simple that if one doesn't order a DNA test, then the results don't exist. We have some choice in the matter. Choose wisely, especially when it comes to your DNA.

Your DNA is not available unless you make it available or unless you are compelled to do so by a law enforcement search warrant.

But if your sibling makes their dna available…..then what?   All bets are off.  It can be proven that that child you tried to hide is actually your child.  I don’t think that is a bad thing.  

[Scarlett]

23 minutes ago, KSera said:

The thing that's makes these direct to consumer DNA tests that have no HIPPA compliance even more frustrating is that you don't have to do one yourself for a lot of info to be deduced about your own DNA if you have close relatives that run these. That feels unfair. And I can't figure out why so many people have just given up on even caring if they have privacy. I agree that we have very little of it right now, but I also find that to be a big problem, and many other countries have started turning that ship around. There seems to be no will here in the US to do the same. People just say "privacy's an illusion" and then continue to hand over all their personal information willingly so that corporations can make money from it.

I mean…..I just don’t care.  There is nothing in my dna that I care to hide. And I don’t care who makes money off of it although I can’t imagine who could or would., my DNA has been out there for 50 years.  Is someone interested in the the dna of a middle age  white woman from the south? Doubt it.   But who cares.,

 

And if my wayward brother made a baby that no one has known about until I put my dna out there….well…good deal.  I hope my dna gives peace and closure to someone.  I have already had a cousin discover her birth parents from my dna and my moms dna.  Should I be horrified by that?  I am not. I don’t even like the known cousin or his new found daughter…..but I believe they have the right to know about each other and I am glad my dna helped in that.

 

 

,

[TechWife]

24 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

But if your sibling makes their dna available…..then what?   All bets are off.  It can be proven that that child you tried to hide is actually your child.  I don’t think that is a bad thing.  

Bodily autonomy is important. No one is compelling anyone to use these private companies. How would the sibling even know about the other sibling if they didn't provide DNA? If biological parents provide DNA and a child provides their DNA, all that is possible is that they become aware of each other and then can make decisions from that point. It won't identify siblings unless the siblings have also surrendered their DNA.

It's impossible to say if anything is "good" or not without any context. After all, someone could be hiding a child for a variety of reasons, not all of them negative.

Edited May 10, 2022 by TechWife

[KSera]

7 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

mean…..I just don’t care.  There is nothing in my dna that I care to hide. And I don’t care who makes money off of it although I can’t imagine who could or would., my DNA has been out there for 50 years.  Is someone interested in the the dna of a middle age  white woman from the south? Doubt it.   But who cares.,

It’s totally your prerogative not to care (though I think you might not understand how big data works, even if you are just a middle aged white woman from the south—that negates nothing about the value of your data profile), but I personally hate it. 

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Bodily autonomy is important. No one is compelling anyone to use these private companies. How would the sibling even know about the other sibling if they didn't provide DNA? If biological parents provide DNA and a child provides their DNA, all that is possible is that they become aware of each other and then can make decisions from that point. It won't identify siblings unless the siblings have also surrendered their DNA.

It's impossible to say if anything is "good" or not without any context. After all, someone could be hiding a child for a variety of reasons, not all of them negative.

What?  My dna can very clearly identify my nieces and nephews.  So far there had been no good reason for that info to not come to light.  Well, it turns out one cousin fathered a child by his brothers wife who then gave up the child to adoption.  My mothers dna led this child , 30 years down the road, to her bio father.  Yes,  all hell broke out as the truth came to light…but it should have come out 30 years earlier.  
 

I have no patience for secrecy and lies. People have the right to know where they came from.

  

[Scarlett]

7 hours ago, KSera said:

It’s totally your prerogative not to care (though I think you might not understand how big data works, even if you are just a middle aged white woman from the south—that negates nothing about the value of your data profile), but I personally hate it. 

Edited out my rudeness.    

Edited May 10, 2022 by Scarlett

[Scarlett]

And don’t give me some confused emoticon.Educate me on how my dna is going to cause me some big problem.,

[KSera]

Just now, Scarlett said:

Well, please feel free to educate my poor pitiful self. I mean, I don’t know nothing about birthin no babies.  

I don't know what you're saying. Are you thinking it only has to do with whose babies are whose? Data companies collect and sell information about almost everything we do that they are able to collect information on. What websites we looked at, what things we bought at Target, what locations we checked in at on our phones, when our period is late, they certainly would be plenty interested to know what medical conditions someone has, whether they carry a breast cancer gene, etc, etc.

[Scarlett]

Just now, KSera said:

I don't know what you're saying. Are you thinking it only has to do with whose babies are whose? Data companies collect and sell information about almost everything we do that they are able to collect information on. What websites we looked at, what things we bought at Target, what locations we checked in at on our phones, when our period is late, they certainly would be plenty interested to know what medical conditions someone has, whether they carry a breast cancer gene, etc, etc.

Ok. To what end? And how do you think you are going to change that outcome by refusing to give up your dna?

[Scarlett]

13 minutes ago, KSera said:

It’s totally your prerogative not to care (though I think you might not understand how big data works, even if you are just a middle aged white woman from the south—that negates nothing about the value of your data profile), but I personally hate it. 

This made me laugh. And cringe. And say whaaast?  

[KSera]

13 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

This made me laugh. And cringe. And say whaaast?  

Why is that? It sounded like you were saying you didn’t know why anyone would be interested in your data because you are a middle-age white woman in the south. That statement made it sound like perhaps you didn’t know much about data collection, since of course your data is being collected and sold. Sounds like you’re saying I’m wrong and you are well versed on the topic. That’s okay. Mea culpa. It wasn’t intended as an insult.

14 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Ok. To what end? And how do you think you are going to change that outcome by refusing to give up your dna?

It’s really impossible to avoid data collection in today’s world, but I can certainly choose not to pay to have a private company run my DNA. Beyond that I go to fairly significant lengths to minimize my data footprint online, including not using Facebook, using a number of privacy extensions on my browser, logging out of shopping websites as soon as I’m done using them, not using any location services, etc. That doesn’t mean there isn’t still a massive file on me that companies can buy, but it’s much smaller than it could be. As I said way above, it’s totally your prerogative to not have concern about that for yourself. I’m not sure why you sound defensive about there being many people who do have concern about that. We are all bothered by different things.

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by KSera

[DawnM]

On 5/8/2022 at 10:09 AM, Scarlett said:

Like most Americans  I expected to have some Native Indian in my dna.  According to ancestry, nope none.

And my DIL can prove from records she has more than 50% NA.  Ancestry puts it at 21%. 

I did not expect to find any Native American and there was none.   I am like 96% British Isles.   Mostly Scottish, so much so that my birth father can trace his roots back to Robert the Bruce.

[Scarlett]

6 hours ago, KSera said:

Why is that? It sounded like you were saying you didn’t know why anyone would be interested in your data because you are a middle-age white woman in the south. That statement made it sound like perhaps you didn’t know much about data collection, since of course your data is being collected and sold. Sounds like you’re saying I’m wrong and you are well versed on the topic. That’s okay. Mea culpa. It wasn’t intended as an insult.

It’s really impossible to avoid data collection in today’s world, but I can certainly choose not to pay to have a private company run my DNA. Beyond that I go to fairly significant lengths to minimize my data footprint online, including not using Facebook, using a number of privacy extensions on my browser, logging out of shopping websites as soon as I’m done using them, not using any location services, etc. That doesn’t mean there isn’t still a massive file on me that companies can buy, but it’s much smaller than it could be. As I said way above, it’s totally your prerogative to not have concern about that for yourself. I’m not sure why you sound defensive about there being many people who do have concern about that. We are all bothered by different things.

 

I apologize for being defensive and dismissive of your concerns.  I just hate to see threads asking which dna company is best  turn into a list of concerns about it. I have had so much fun with it and learned so much and helped so many people learn things they could have never learned otherwise. 

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, DawnM said:

I did not expect to find any Native American and there was none.   I am like 96% British Isles.   Mostly Scottish, so much so that my birth father can trace his roots back to Robert the Bruce.

Oh I guess I should have not said like all Americans.  But so so many people on the dna forums are just shocked there is no NA in their ethnicity profile.,  I was one of those shocked. 

[TechWife]

7 hours ago, Scarlett said:

I mean…..I just don’t care.  There is nothing in my dna that I care to hide. And I don’t care who makes money off of it although I can’t imagine who could or would., my DNA has been out there for 50 years.  Is someone interested in the the dna of a middle age  white woman from the south? Doubt it.   But who cares.,

 

And if my wayward brother made a baby that no one has known about until I put my dna out there….well…good deal.  I hope my dna gives peace and closure to someone.  I have already had a cousin discover her birth parents from my dna and my moms dna.  Should I be horrified by that?  I am not. I don’t even like the known cousin or his new found daughter…..but I believe they have the right to know about each other and I am glad my dna helped in that.

 

 

,

It isn't just a matter of someone making money selling the info in your DNA.

This opens up the possibilities for discrimination -

Insurance companies denying coverage or increasing premiums based on a person's certainty or likelihood of developing a disease.

Job discrimination - Hiring practices, promotions and salaries can be affected by perceptions of a person's ability to contribute to a company's bottom line.

Health care - This could raise a variety of ethical questions now and in the future about what care is offered to whom at what point in time. For example - If someone needs a kidney transplant, does the knowledge that they have an increased chance of getting breast cancer prevent them from getting on the transplant list?

Financial - Approving a 30 year mortgage knowing that someone's anticipated lifespan is lower than normal?  Perhaps an interest rate increase is in line due to the likelihood that the financier would have fewer years to make money from interest payments.

Housing - Maybe a landlord doesn't rent to someone with a disability in their future because they may be on the hook for the cost of  physical accommodations to a residence.

These are just some of the concerns people have. I haven't even touched on the psychological aspects of having information w/out having access to genetic counseling, accessible healthcare or the impacts this type of information can have on relationships of all kinds.

 

 

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, TechWife said:

It isn't just a matter of someone making money selling the info in your DNA.

This opens up the possibilities for discrimination -

Insurance companies denying coverage or increasing premiums based on a person's certainty or likelihood of developing a disease.

Job discrimination - Hiring practices, promotions and salaries can be affected by perceptions of a person's ability to contribute to a company's bottom line.

Health care - This could raise a variety of ethical questions now and in the future about what care is offered to whom at what point in time. For example - If someone needs a kidney transplant, does the knowledge that they have an increased chance of getting breast cancer prevent them from getting on the transplant list?

Financial - Approving a 30 year mortgage knowing that someone's anticipated lifespan is lower than normal?  Perhaps an interest rate increase is in line due to the likelihood that the financier would have fewer years to make money from interest payments.

Housing - Maybe a landlord doesn't rent to someone with a disability in their future because they may be on the hook for the cost of  physical accommodations to a residence.

These are just some of the concerns people have. I haven't even touched on the psychological aspects of having information w/out having access to genetic counseling, accessible healthcare or the impacts this type of information can have on relationships of all kinds.

 

 

Not a single one of those things concerns me in the slightest.  

[TechWife]

7 hours ago, Scarlett said:

What?  My dna can very clearly identify my nieces and nephews.  So far there had been no good reason for that info to not come to light.  Well, it turns out one cousin fathered a child by his brothers wife who then gave up the child to adoption.  My mothers dna led this child , 30 years down the road, to her bio father.  Yes,  all hell broke out as the truth came to light…but it should have come out 30 years earlier.  
 

I have no patience for secrecy and lies. People have the right to know where they came from.

  

If you don't give your DNA up, how can it identify your nieces and nephews?

People have a right to privacy and dignity. Why should this information have come to light at all? What good did it serve?

[TechWife]

4 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Not a single one of those things concerns me in the slightest.  

It's not just about you. It's about precedent and changing societal norms.

[maize]

On 5/8/2022 at 9:57 AM, math teacher said:

Both, actually. 

OK, there are a few ways to go about this.

If cost is a significant issue, you can do just the Ancestry.com test and run it through a third-party health analysis tool to maybe get some health information.

For direct health information, 23andMe is best but what they report on is still pretty limited. They have a pretty good ethnicity estimate program as well, but not many people use them for genealogy/relative connections so their database for that is small.

Ancestry has a huge genealogy database and gazillions of DNA users; you will definitely find DNA matches. Lots of adoptees find family on there.

MyHeritage has more matches from some European countries. I've been trying to help my grandmother track down her Swedish grandfather's family and MyHeritage has been helpful. Family Tree DNA as well.

MyHeritage and FTDNA both allow you to transfer your DNA file from another service like Ancestry, so you don't have to take a test directly through them. 

For genealogy, if you have relatives from a prior generation able and willing to test you can get more useful information. Parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, or great aunts and uncles all have more DNA from earlier ancestors than you do. Each of us only gets half of each parent's DNA, so a lot of information is lost with every generation. For example, my grandmother's tests show Native American heritage but mine do not--and I only match with about 1/4 of her DNA relative matches (even though they are of course my relatives too!).