Yes and no
DNA is so often a matter of bad news mixed in with the good, isn’t it? And this past week’s news out of Salt Lake City has been no exception.
The bad news
Let’s get the bad news out of the way first:
There isn’t going to be a chromosome browser at AncestryDNA.
This very simple tool for comparing autosomal DNA — the type we all inherit from both of our parents and that helps us find cousins to work with on our family histories1 — is a staple of the features of two of the genetic genealogy DNA testing companies (23andMe and Family Tree DNA) and perhaps the single most commonly used tool by genetic genealogists.
Now this is not exactly a surprise that we’re not going to get one at AncestryDNA. Their staff has never been sold on it, has hemmed and hawed when pressed on it, has offered all kinds of arguments why it poses problems.
But finally somebody came flat out and simply said no. And it’s somebody who’s in a position to know.
One of the speakers at the Association of Professional Genealogists’ Professional Management Conference in Salt Lake City this past week was Howard Hochhauser. His title at Ancestry: Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer.2
He offered some of the usual reasons AncestryDNA’s team offers when asked about the chromosome browser, and echoed science officer Catherine Ball’s privacy concerns — the argument that if you and I match, and you know what segment we match on, and you know that segment carries the marker for a disease, you know I have that marker. (Apparently the notion that I might be perfectly willing to allow that level of disclosure by opting in hasn’t occurred to the AncestryDNA decision makers…
But Hochhauser went beyond where AncestryDNA usually goes when asked about this and simply said no. It isn’t going to happen. The resources they’d need to devote to making a chromosome browser available are resources they want to spend for other things, like growing the database.
No surprise, and frankly I’d prefer getting a flat-out truthful answer rather than the hemming and hawing — but it’s still disappointing.
The good news
The good news is that an ad hoc committee of genetic genealogists who have been working to complete an ethical code for integrating DNA testing into our genealogical research has finished the first phase of its task and has released the first-ever set of comprehensive ethical standards for DNA testing for genealogy.
The draft standards were released for public comment in 2014, more than 75 comments were received, reviewed and — where appropriate — incorporated into the final version, and it’s now available online and as a downloadable PDF at GeneticGenealogyStandards.com.
That announcement came yesterday at the first-ever Colloquium of the Salt Lake Institute of Genealogy (SLIG) when Blaine T. Bettinger, who blogs as The Genetic Genealogist, presented a paper on the topic.
Bettinger has spearheaded the effort, along with CeCe Moore, David Bachinsky, Traci Barela, Katherine Borges, Angie Bush, Melinde Lutz Byrne, Shannon S Christmas, George T. Cicila, Michael Hait, Tim Janzen, James M Owston, Ana Oquendo Pabón, Ugo Perego, Steven C. Perkins, Ann Turner, Debbie Parker Wayne, and Jennifer Zinck.
The standards are “intended to provide standards and best practices for the genealogical community to follow when purchasing, recommending, sharing, or writing about the results of DNA testing for ancestry.”3 They’re not designed to replace good personal judgment. The code expressly notes that it remains “ultimately the responsibility of those taking a genetic genealogy test (“tester”) to understand and consider these standards before ordering or agreeing to take any genetic genealogy test.”
The standard provide a number of clear mandates:
• Testing is undertaken only with the informed consent of the person tested.
• Those tested understand that DNA testing “can reveal unexpected information about the tester and his or her immediate family, ancestors, and/or descendants. For example, both DNA test results and traditional genealogical records can reveal misattributed parentage, adoption, health information, previously unknown family members, and errors in well-researched family trees, among other unexpected outcomes.”
• Information about another’s test results is shared only with the other’s consent.4
These and all the provisions of the standards are entirely consistent with the best practices of genealogists on all ethical issues,5 and — for what it’s worth — carry The Legal Genealogist‘s unqualified support.
SOURCES
- See ISOGG Wiki (http://www.isogg.org/wiki), “Autosomal DNA,” rev. 11 Jan 2015. ↩
- “LEADERSHIP: Meet the Ancestry.com management team,” Ancestry.com (ttp://corporate.ancestry.com : accessed 10 Jan 2015). ↩
- “Genetic Genealogy Standards,” GeneticGenealogyStandards.com (http://www.geneticgenealogystandards.com/ : accessed 10 Jan 2015). ↩
- Ibid. ↩
- See e.g. “Standards for Sharing Information with Others,” 2000, PDF, National Genealogical Society (http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/ : accessed 10 Jan 2015). ↩
Judy,
Thanks for the update on this important resource that so many of us are using.
Diane
It’s a good piece of work by the committee, isn’t it?
Yes, thanks for the update. DNA testing has become a big part of genealogy so having some standards are very good. On the other hand, it is disappointing news on the lack of a chromosome browser from Ancestry, but, like you said, it is good to know where they stand.
Definitely disappointing, but not at all surprising.
I’ve been holding off on contacting AncestryDNA matches on the off chance Ancestry.com might change their mind about a chrome browser. I guess my next step will be to contact as many as I can and ask them to upload their DNA data to GedMatch.
Those who are uncomfortable being “out in public” such as on Gedmatch can also transfer their data to Family Tree DNA for as little as $39. (It’s free if you can get four others to transfer too.)
While I found your column of great interest, I didn’t learn much because I do not understand what a chromosome browser is or how I would use it with my dna testing results from Ancestry.
A chromosome browser lets you see (a) how much DNA you and a match share in common; (b) how that shared DNA is broken up into a few or many segments; and (c) where — on which specific chromosomes — the common segments of DNA appear. That allows you to work with many matches to come up with a working theory that, for example, several people who all share this 20 cM (centimorgan = unit of DNA measurement) segment must all be descendants of a specific person/couple. You can read more about how a chromosome browser can be used here:
https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/2013/11/10/looking-at-recombination/; or
https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/2013/11/03/if-at-first-you-dont-succeed/; or
https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/2013/09/01/the-common-mismatch/; or
https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/2012/01/22/relative-match/
This sucks. DNA matches write me on Ancestry and tell me they’ve “confirmed” our shared ancestry. No, they haven’t. Genetic genealogists need to work hard to disabuse people of this notion.
I’ll probably never buy another Ancestry kit. Until recently I was conflicted about that. But at Christmastime, I bought kits for four family members. Shelling out the cash brought clarity to the decision. Weighing all the pros and cons, I chose 23andMe. Family trees are helpful, but even without one, I can often build one virtually from scratch for my DNA matches. I cannot, however, build matching segment information from scratch. If you’re serious about using DNA testing for genealogy, you cannot rely on Ancestry. Don’t be seduced by the trees. Unless you’re determined to “fish in every pond” anyway, they’re not worth it.
Jason, you can see that I am no rah-rah Ancestry cheerleader — but my own view is that anyone serious about locating cousins using autosomal DNA has got to fish in the AncestryDNA pond. The depth of the database is simply too great to walk away from it unless we’re doing a bit of cutting off our own noses. That being said, I get every serious match I have on AncestryDNA to transfer as fast as possible to Family Tree DNA if I possibly can to get the benefit of decent analytical tools. But I’m not walking away from those matches.
What you’re saying makes perfect sense. I agree. But that’s why Ancestry isn’t going to get serious about genetic genealogy by providing matching segment information. They don’t need to.
I have a big family and right now I can’t afford to test everyone everywhere. Unfortunately, as big as Ancestry’s database is, it’s largely unusable. That’s why my limited testing funds will not be going to Ancestry anytime soon.
You can get the benefit of the Ancestry database by testing only the key people there — and then moving their matches — if they’re willing — as soon as possible to FTDNA.
But then Ancestry still gets the benefit of my money which is all they really want. No thank you. I have tested one major person there before I realized how virtually useless their tests are. But I will never give them another DNA dime without the tools I need to properly analyze the information. What a waste of my time and energy to try convince people to upload to Gedmatch or to transfer. We’re all better off voting for other companies who provide better services with both our dollars and our DNA and encouraging others to do the same.
Yes, it gets your money. And in return you get matches to what is expected to reach 1 million testers in the database in 2015. That reach, by itself, is worth the money to me. I don’t like what AncestryDNA has chosen to do in terms of its tools (or lack thereof). But that doesn’t mean the matches are worthless.
Anyone can transfer their AncestryDNA to Family Tree DNA and and utilize the chromosome browser utility.
FTDNA offers a free autosomal transfer of your raw data from AncestryDNA and 23andme. Once your data is in the FTDNA system you can view your top 20 matches and use their chromosome browser to see where you match on each chromosome, including the X. To unlock the full feature set inducing the ability to contact your matches you can recruit others to transfer or pay a nominal fee.
There is no obligation. [personal link deleted]
Good luck!
Jim
Perhaps in the future it would be worthwhile to outline the ethical obligations of the companies that provide genealogical genomics services.
“The resources they’d need to devote to making a chromosome browser available are resources they want to spend for other things, like growing the database.”
They really said that? It is not rocket science. GEDmatch is free.
So why don’t they just charge a additional fee to those of us who want to use a browser?
Resources aren’t the only reason; underlying it as well is a view that a chromosome browser discloses more than they want to disclose. They don’t trust us to be able to opt in intelligently.