To be published & effective in 2019
Without further ado or comment, the following press release comes from the Board for Certification of Genealogists:
Board for Certification of Genealogists Adopts Standards for DNA Evidence
On 21 October 2018, the Board for the Certification of Genealogists (BCG) approved five modified and seven new standards relating to the use of DNA evidence in genealogical work. BCG also updated the Genealogist’s Code to address the protection of people who provide DNA samples.
The new measures are intended to assist the millions of family historians who now turn to genetic sources to establish kinships. The action followed a public comment period on proposed standards released by BCG earlier this year.
“BCG firmly believes the standards must evolve to incorporate this new type of evidence,” according to BCG President Richard G. Sayre. “Associates, applicants, and the public should know BCG respects DNA evidence. It respects the complexity of the evidence and the corresponding need for professional standards. BCG does not expect use of DNA to be demonstrated in every application for certification. However, all genealogists, including applicants, need to make sound decisions about when DNA can or should be used, and any work products that incorporate it should meet the new standards and ethical provisions.”
“Standards for Using DNA Evidence,” a new chapter to be incorporated in Genealogy Standards, introduces the issues this way:
“Meeting the Genealogical Proof Standard requires using all available and relevant types of evidence. DNA evidence both differs from and shares commonalities with documentary evidence. Like other types of evidence, DNA evidence is not always available, relevant, or usable for a specific problem, is not used alone, and involves planning, analyzing, drawing conclusions, and reporting. Unlike other types of evidence, DNA evidence usually comes from people now living.”
In brief1, the new standards address seven areas:
• Planning DNA tests. The first genetic standard describes the qualities of an effective plan for DNA testing including types of tests, testing companies, and analytical tools. It also calls for selecting the individuals based on their DNA’s potential to answer a research question.
• Analyzing DNA test results. The second genetic standard covers factors that might impact a genetic relationship conclusion, including analysis of pedigrees, documentary research, chromosomal segments, and mutations, markers or regions; also, composition of selected comparative test takers and genetic groups.
• Extent of DNA evidence. The third genetic standard describes the qualities needed for sufficiently extensive DNA data.
• Sufficient verifiable data. The fourth genetic standard addresses the verifiability of data used to support conclusions.
• Integrating DNA and documentary evidence. The fifth genetic standard calls for a combination of DNA and documentary evidence to support a conclusion about a genetic relationship. It also calls for analysis of all types of evidence.
• Conclusions about genetic relationships. The sixth genetic standard defines the parameters of a genetic relationship and the need for accurate representation of genealogical conclusions.
• Respect for privacy rights. The seventh genetic standard describes the parameters of informed consent.
The modifications made to several existing standards call for:
• Documentation of sources for each parent-child link.
• Where appropriate, distinction among adoptive, foster, genetic, step, and other kinds of familial relationships.
• Use of graphics as aids, for example: genealogical charts and diagrams to depict proved or hypothesized relationships; or lists and tables to facilitate correlation of data and demonstrate patterns or conflicts in evidence.
• Explanations of deficiencies when research is insufficient to reach a conclusion.
A new edition of Genealogy Standards is expected to be ready by next March. A new application guide and judging rubrics incorporating the new standards will be released at about the same time. In the interim, portfolios submitted for consideration for certification will be evaluated using the existing Genealogy Standards.
NOTE
The words Certified Genealogist and the designation CG are registered certification marks and the designations Certified Genealogical Lecturer and CGL are service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board-certified associates after periodic competency evaluations, and the board name is registered in the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.
- The Board for Certification of Genealogists® (BCG) contractually granted the publisher of Genealogy Standards the exclusive right to copy, publish and distribute the standards including amendments. However, BCG-certified associates have the contractual right to include reasonable portions of the standards in presentations, articles, blog posts, social media, and the like. In no case may BCG or its associates allow the standards to be published in their entirety because the publisher deems that competitive to its publication rights. ↩
I sometimes wonder if I should be working on my family’s history at all. I usually can’t follow the standard for even one person. People who don’t live where documents were kept don’t leave a paper trail. The newspaper either wasn’t in existence or had just ceased publication for the time I need. The BMD wasn’t mandatory for the time I need. They were too poor to own land but not poor enough for the poor house. It’s unbelievable how little of either side of my family is documented at certain times. So my theory is, write the history; don’t call it genealogy. Have a good time. Meet some new cousins. Discover some “You’re kidding!!” moments and let it go. I’m not making any money off my research. I’m not publishing a genealogy book or blog. I have a public tree at ancestry and if someone copies it, their problem, not mine. If they want to collaborate, great! I’m in favor of that. But if I wait until I meet the genealogical criteria, my ancestor’s stories will never be compiled. So my research is what it is. I’m satisfied with it. If someone else isn’t, they can do their own research.
Great points!
There are always ways to work to standards even in those very difficult cases where documentary evidence doesn’t exist. One of my most fun cases was proving the parents of a woman married before 1850 (so never enumerated in her father’s household in a census) where she left no birth, marriage or death record.
Apparently, the draft standards generated significant discussion and underwent substantial changes. I hope we won’t have to wait until March for the new standards to be published in a big reveal. The DNA standards and supporting thought process would be great material for blogs and webinars this fall and winter.
There are scenarios where hypotheses cannot be proven with historical documents/evidence. Yet DNA paints a compelling case for an individual’s surname. I have a conundrum and wonder how the GPS will view it. Thomas Avitt of Fayette Co., TN is a hypothesized ancestor based on lots of circumstantial evidence; specifically 4th great grandfather. Seeking more evidence, I looked at his wife. She is Sarah W, whose maiden name is unknown. Their neigbors include lots of Gober surnamed folk. Their daughter marries a Gober. Extensive studying of Gober lines shows many first cousin marriages and other endogamy, which may help explain the number of matches. My at-DNA matches 7 individuals whose pedigrees leads back 7 to 10 generations to a single William M Gober who was born in 1721. The earliest convergence of the 7 lines before William is back 8 generations. There are in-common-with matches between some of these lines. Others with Avitt ancestors have Gober descendant matches. The only known path from us to Gober is through that marriage, which does not explain the DNA match. The hypothesis is that Sarah W is a Gober. Despite extensive looking, this cannot (YET) be verified in historical documents. Would the GPS support the conclusion that our mystery lady is Sarah W Gober?
This kind of analysis was facilitated by using a graph database incorporating both DNA and family tree data. http://stumpf.org/genealogy-blog/tag/neo4j