DNA standards comment period ends tomorrow
Tomorrow, the 23rd of July 2018, is the deadline.
And it’s important that your voice be heard.
What deadline, you ask?
The deadline for comments on proposed DNA standards under consideration for adoption by the Board for Certification of Genealogists.
The bottom line here is that DNA has become a mainstream tool in the genealogist’s toolbox, so much so that it must be considered as part and parcel of any effort to conduct reasonably exhaustive research — that first and key element of the gold standard for genealogical proofs: the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS, for short).
Synthesized by the Board for Certification of Genealogists between 1997 and 2000 from decades of work by the best minds in our field, the GPS clarifies, organizes, and compiles the field’s best practices to give us all a standard to which our work can aspire.
Its five elements — reasonably exhaustive research, source citation, analysis and correlation of evidence, resolution of conflicts in evidence items, and a soundly reasoned written conclusion — must all be present in order for a genealogical conclusion to meet the GPS.
When first published by BCG, of course, DNA was barely in its infancy. Even when the Board published the work Genealogy Standards in early 2014, more fully discussing what it means to meet the GPS in our work, the full scope of DNA’s impact on our field hadn’t yet been felt.
That’s no longer the case, and, now, BCG has made it clear that it intends to more fully incorporate genetic evidence into Genealogy Standards. A committee tasked with reviewing the issue proposed new and amended standards, and the Board invite public comment on the proposals.
The purpose of the public comment period is to ensure that all of us who are working to bring DNA into our research as much as we can have a full and complete opportunity to weigh in of these proposed standards. This means all of us, whether we’re starting out or well along the journey. Everyone in the field can speak out.
But the time for comment is running short: the deadline is tomorrow, the 23rd of July 2018.
This is a critical step forward for DNA as part of genealogy — getting everyone as much as possible in the same mindset on what it means to have reached a genealogical conclusion based in part on DNA evidence.
So… what can you do about this?
Take a look: a copy of the proposed DNA standards in PDF format can be downloaded here.
Think it through: what among the proposals makes sense? What doesn’t? What’s clear? What’s confusing? What needs more emphasis or less? In short, if we were judging our own work by these standards, would we be able to reach a considered judgment as to whether what we’d done was a good job or perhaps needed more work?
And weigh in: public comment can be submitted using the form here.
Only with the input of the community can BCG reach a good workable consensus and get these standards adopted.
And there’s just one more day to be heard.
Cannot find the definitions which will be in the Glossary to go with the proposals. Where are they?
I don’t have an answer to that.
Standards must be in place and upheld for confidence to be maintained.
The following are suggested revisions :
1) Regarding Proposed Modified Standard 58:
“Discussions, when evidence conflicts, explains how the genealogist resolved the conflict or why it could not be resolved.”
The clause, “when evidence conflicts” is parenthetical; therefore the sentence should read properly without it – and “Discussions explains” is incorrect. I suggest using “Discussions explain (singular) or alternatively, “Discussion explains….but the double plural doesn’t flow or read properly when the parenthetical clause is removed.
Another option: When evidence conflicts, discussions serve to explain how the genealogist resolved the conflict or why it could not be resolved.”
2) Suggestion for modifying language in Ch 7: “Using Genetic Evidence”
I suggest modifying this to read: “Using Genetic (DNA) Evidence” or “Using Genetic Evidence (aka DNA Evidence)” etc. – as “DNA evidence is mentioned directly beneath and some may be unclear as to whether or not there’s a difference and/or what that difference may be.
Are we calling evidence produced from DNA test results “Genetic Evidence?” If so, let’s call it that consistently. If we’re going to use the two terms interchangeably, then that should be clarified and introduced in its first mention.
Further, there’s an opportunity (that was missed here) to define Genetic/DNA evidence….ESPECIALLY since it’s so new…and shouldn’t that include more than autosomal DNA test results?
All types of genetic (DNA) testing should be mentioned – as well as the fact that one need not take every possible type of available DNA test in order for their research meet the “reasonably exhaustive” criteria of the GPS.
Example: If my question is, “Who is John Doe Jr’s natural father?” and autosomal testing proves that John Doe Sr. is his natural father, does the fact that John Jr didn’t take a paternity test and Y-DNA test mean that the research was not “reasonably exhaustive?” What if John Jr. DID take those tests? Must I report on all three items….when one (on its own) proves his paternity and the rest is (literally) overkill? These are questions the genealogist and genetic genealogist will have – none of which is addressed here.
Having just completed BU’s genealogical research certificate program – one thought came to mind repeatedly during the written client report exercises….and THAT is….no one can say “I don’t know, more research is needed” in 10 pages like a genealogist can. We use WAY too many pages to prove or say what can be said briefly – and with proof – just saying.
3) I suggest editing this sentence:
“The following standards, specific to DNA, do not stand alone. They are not the only standards that genealogists’ work should meet.”
Suggested change:
“The following standards, specific to genetic evidence, do not stand alone and are not the only standards that genealogists’ work should meet.” OR-
“The following standards, specific to DNA evidence, do not stand alone; they are not the only standards that genealogists’ work should meet.”
Another suggestion – why even say this (in the negative)? And also – are we to GUESS at what those other GPS standards are – and how the genealogist knows they’ve met them (like a rubric) by defining the remaining elements of the GPS SPECIFIC to genetic evidence? We can’t take for granted that even the “CG” gets it….as DNA is a totally different animal.
I suggest: “The following standards, specific to Genetic/DNA Evidence must be applied, in addition to the 4 standards (and name them) of the GPS – and then define under what circumstances the GPS is met specific to genetic/DNA evidence. (Ambiguity is a huge frustration – and one this genealogist encountered it the BU program. Circular thinking, ambiguous answers, subjective evaluation being left to GUESS at what was meant or seek further clarification….NO GOOD! Please…SPELL IT OUT – especially in this new arena of “Genetic/DNA Evidence.” Please spell out HOW, SPECIFICALLY, the GPS is met, relevant to Genetic Evidence. Sub-categories or definitions may be required based on the TYPE of DNA test taken (or results used). In my mind, the isn’t anywhere near complete.
__________
Side note: I’m sure ESM will find 900 ways (or at least 50) to cite the same genetic evidence item (under nuances of circumstances that no one give a rat’s patootie about) and no matter how anyone applies themselves – will twist themselves into a pretzel in hopes of “getting it right.” THERE’S GOT TO BE A BETTER, clearer, easier, and consistent way to cite genealogical sources vs. the inconsistent logic of ONE person…and every possible source/nuance imaginable….that could possibly exist being cited. One thing is for sure…”Evidence Explained” ain’t it.
Why should ANYONE devote themselves to a month or more of wrapping their head around another’s mental masturbation and inconsistent logic? Because the genealogical community FINALLY agreed (after 20 yrs) that “Evidence” is the new Bible? (Sadly, the answer to that is “Yes.” No offense, Liz.) Is this REALLY the best the genealogical community can do?!! Does longer and more complicated REALLY mean “better” or “superior?” I don’t think so. If it takes 1000 pages to “explain” something…. To explain anything for that matter …then SOMETHING IS WRONG.
THERE IS GENIUS AND ELEGANCE IN SIMPLICITY. Steve Jobs thought that way; most (truly) brilliant minds do. Can’t SOMEONE (Blaine?) in this community seek to extinct “EE” in favor of (a new title I just made up) “ELEGANT EVIDENCE!” ?? I think THAT would be a book worth buying and a method a community can wrap their heads around with a 2-3 page pamphlet that one need only refer to – vs. watch an instructor gyrate on video over one citiation for 20 min. (That’s precious and wasted research time – in my opinion). Feel free to steal the title/concept if it’ll save the rest of us from the overactive, inconsistent, hyper-nuanced thought processes (to the extent of no one being able to truly get it right…and easily so) and machinations of a self-proclaimed (and later elected) bibliography queen. (I’m sure she’s a lovely person). Tony Robbins is just Napolean Hill re-packaged and hyper-nuanced. EE is Chicago Manual of Style same way. MORE and MORE COMPLICATED is NOT better. Citations shouldn’t be a profession within itself. End of rant. All of this having been said – these new standards will likely created a 200 page addition to EE.
“ELEGANT EVIDENCE,” …I like it! Maybe that’s MY book (pamphlet/guide) to write in the future! Anyone want to partner with me on this? Yes. I’m serious. (gerriberger@yahoo.com) Maybe the only way the community will toss “Evidence Explained” into the fire – is if ESM herself suggests that the genealogical community do us…. In favor of “Elegant Evidence.” Stephen Hawkings authored theories…and then developed others that made his prior one’s irrelevant. We’ve become lemmings…and after 20 yrs of not being able to agree on anything – everyone’s so pleased to finally just agree – without scratching their heads after reading that book without saying….”You’ve gotta be kidding me. Theres’s gotta be a better way. Let’s be Elegant INNOVATORS. A hope for the future!
______________
4) Ch. 7 – First paragraph:
I think it’s necessary/important to make clear (re: genetic evidence) what a “reasonably exhaustive search” is – and is not. Perhaps a table would be useful – and one that lists the different types of genetic evidence or test types. I think it’s important to say that an exhaustive or reasonably exhaustive search using genetic/DNA evidence doesn’t mean that one must report on each of their matches (some have thousands of matches), or that one must examine results from every type of test offered, or that one must report on all matches who descend from the common ancestor(s)/research subject(s). DNA is a totally “different animal” so the “reasonably exhaustive” portion of the GPS must be defined and clarified (otherwise genealogists work and how it’s evaluated becomes subjective – and the standard is only in the mind of the evaluator – which may differ from another’s). Ambiguity is the enemy.
Reasonably exhaustive should be defined/quantified… ie: What NUMBER is a “SUFFICIENT NUMBER” and does that depend on the TYPE of test? Again, a table would be a useful tool here, too. (Yes – a “sufficient number” DOES hinge on test type. ie: paternity test requires two testers– father and child). “Two or more (with no more than 5 total required) relevant autosomal DNA matches, each of whom share common segment(s) and at least one common ancestor.” My point is – DEFINE IT (please) ..as DNA is a “totally different animal” and re: genetic evidence our matches, their DNA and their pedigree charts and perhaps graphics etc. are our “sources,” so the GPS can’t (logically) be a “one-size fits all” applied to genetic evidence. We must use the same 5 areas and define them differently, as they apply to the GPS. Makes sense – right?
How will the reader/evaluator know whether my search using DNA evidence meets the GPS (aka was “reasonably exhaustive”) when they have no access to my DNA account(s) or those of my clients… and do not know how many matches I have (or they have) etc? Hoping you underscore a point here re: the need for clarification or further defining “reasonably exhaustive” as it pertains to DNA evidence. Triangulation involves two or more matches….so it seems reasonable that this should be defined as a minimum standard.
Also – what if the genealogist isn’t familiar with chromosome mapping and graphics? Will their report fail the GPS if these items are not included? Even if one has developed those skills, what if the testers didn’t upload to GEDmatch or test with a co. who offers a chr. Browser? Next comes the issue of PRIVACY…and how that may impede the researchers ability to provide the aforementioned. What are the ethical implications of showing those graphics/genetic relationships/common segments without the permission of all whose tests are involved? Who knows whether or not my client will publish/distribute that report, post it online, etc.
5) If you’re going to introduce Genetic/DNA Evidence into standards (the “GPS”), and mentioned autosomal testing …then why is there no mention of paternity testing, Y-DNA testing and mtDNA testing? Surely paternity tests provide evidence within 99.9% reliability and are worthy of mention. Y-DNA testing with “0” deviation, etc. I suggest you either rename the section: “USING AUTOSOMAL DNA AS GENETIC EVIDENCE” or leave the title alone and include the other types of tests that are actively used to draw accurate conclusions about genetic relationships.
6) Under #1: Selective. (Insert the word “the” before “potential”)
Suggested change:
” Genealogists select DNA tests, testing companies, and analytical tools with THE potential…etc…. ”
7) Under “Sufficiently Extensive”.: (Two comments under this section)
a) ”Genealogists examine the test results of a sufficient number…..”
Who’s to say what a sufficient number is and how will I know when the standard is met. Include a table by test type and set min/max standards.
b) it may be splitting hairs – but it seems to me that items “a” and “c” should be combined, as they’re essentially the same (testing for the same thing) put a different way (aka using different language). Test takers descending from a common ancestor will/would have shared segments pointing to the ancestor. I suppose it depends (or should depend) on what the goal/purpose is:
(a) to identify the ancestors
(b) identify the inherited common segment
(c) both
If it’s “a” or “c” – then “a” and “c” should be combined into one item (perhaps with two parts). If it’s “b” then that should be made more clear…ie: that the purpose is related to segment mapping (only) vs. ancestor identification or a combination of the two (both).
This was offered constructively -and from the reader’s perspective on second pass of the suggested changes.
This reader has a Masters in Psych, worked as an HR exec for 25 yrs, was a professional (and certified) corporate trainer (in Fortune 500 environment) and is a professional genetic genealogist who reunites adoptees with their birth parents and just completed BU’s Genealogical Research Pgm.
Thank for considering.
I think it’s reasonable to assume that other genealogists (ie – my fellow BU classmates… and CGs) would have the same questions/concerns re: this material as me….as we often did in the online program. The ambiguities were jumped on with (the same) follow-up questions and were echoed by more than a few… as they occurred. (“Seven crazy Frenchmen cant all be crazy.”) When that happens – it’s a sign to instructors that the material is vague and requires REVISION – not just online (repeated and redundant) clarification and subjective evaluation of students’ work based on their understanding (guessing) at what was meant. The material should be CRYSTAL CLEAR ….reviewed and edited with a critical eye toward eliminating any/all ambiguities…..or it’s not ready for publication.
Your comments on the BCG proposed standards are excellent, but I can’t file them for you, and they won’t be recorded if they’re posted as a comment to the blog. Please go to the link provided (here for your convenience: https://goo.gl/forms/57ahXLqkAYOBWDop2) and post them there. See the email I sent you for further info.
Re: your comments about Evidence Explained.
Watch for the September 2018 issue of APG Quarterly. I’ve written a piece titled “Explaining Evidence Explained” that walks you through the four fundamental citation formats used in the book, each representing a broad category of source types.
And to defend the book directly, what makes it so long is not the number of citation examples, but instead is the explanations of the content and qualities of so many different sources for evaluation purposes.
PS. Please forgive typos in my previous post. Also, I meant to say, “the GPS can’t (logically) be a “one-size fits all” applied to genetic evidence (and other sources). We must use the same 5 areas (of the GPS)and define them differently, as they apply to genetic/DNA evidence ….and be specific by quantifying terms as “sufficient number”….how many is sufficient? Makes sense – right?