E-Letter responses to:

p-forum: Deborah A. Bolnick, Duana Fullwiley, Troy Duster, Richard S. Cooper, Joan H. Fujimura, Jonathan Kahn, Jay S. Kaufman, Jonathan Marks, Ann Morning, Alondra Nelson, Pilar Ossorio, Jenny Reardon, Susan M. Reverby, and Kimberly TallBear GENETICS: The Science and Business of Genetic Ancestry Testing Science 2007; 318: 399-400 [Summary] [Full text] [PDF]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Misinformation, Social Construction, and Genomic Ancestry Testing

Jennifer Wagner, Mark D. Shriver   (19 December 2007)

Genetic Ancestry Critique Needs Evidentiary Support

Perry W. Payne, Jr.   (10 December 2007)

Misinformation, Social Construction, and Genomic Ancestry Testing 19 December 2007
Jennifer Wagner, Attorney and Graduate Student Penn State University, Mark D. Shriver Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Misinformation, Social Construction, and Genomic Ancestry Testing	Genomic ancestry testing is not unlike researching demographic records (birth, marriage, and migration documents) or family histories: all are pieces of information suitable for many purposes, including forming identities. None can be known "with exact certainty," though D. A. Bolnick et al. implied this is a unique shortcoming of genomic ancestry testing (Policy Forum, "The science and business of genetic ancestry testing," 19 October, p. 399). Birth certificates may be inadvertently inaccurate or forged intentionally. Families circulate myths either to hide embarrassing or accentuate favorable particulars. It would be silly to recommend a doctor ignore a patient's family medical history simply because it's not known with exact certainty. So, too, is the cautionary warning Bolnick et al. pose to doctors whose patients request consideration of genetic ancestry results in planning their care. Genetic determinism is a dangerous concept, but so is genetic exceptionalism. The serious consequences noted by these authors—that receiving genomic ancestry information may lead individuals to reconsider their stated self-identification and thereby confuse sociologists tracking racism’s effects—indicates a broader problem. Americans comprise a diverse meta-population where admixture among sub-populations is common: how should the children of these admixing couples be identified? And the children of those admixed children? Social constructions (like anti-miscegenation laws and class/caste systems) reduce gene flow and by influencing with whom we partner drive biological differentiation. If the fight against racial discrimination is to be won, certainly it will have the effect of further blurring, socially and genetically, the categories birthed in economic inequity and perpetuated by the one-drop rule, "skin-color," and social theories. A successful fight against racism would have the effect of making group generalizations wonderfully inconceivable and compel the consideration of each person as an individual. Discrimination is not an equal-opportunity offender but affects persons and populations differently. Populations sampled for social studies, like those for genetic studies, are not homogenous or static. It is a dilemma that the ability to track categories is exactly what facilitates their inequitable use. There are strong incentives for group advocates to categorize people into discrete boxes, or, in other words, to dichotomize a spectrum. It may not be prudent to consider proportional genomic ancestry results when determining whether an individual is a member of a constitutionally or statutorily protected class. Ultimately, that is not a challenge to the accuracy of genomic ancestry testing but rather a challenge for the legal community and a matter for public debate. Jennifer Wagner and Mark D. Shriver Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
Genetic Ancestry Critique Needs Evidentiary Support 10 December 2007
Perry W. Payne, Jr., Assistant Research Professor George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Sciences,Department of Health Policy Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Genetic Ancestry Critique Needs Evidentiary Support	The Policy Forum article by D. A.Bolnick et al. ("The science and business of genetic ancestry testing," 19 October 2007, p. 399) has at least two problems. The first problem is that the limitations of genetic ancestry testing which the authors discuss are not supported by any evidence. Whether these limitations are real problems or the authors’ assumptions is left for the reader to decide. The authors imply that companies are not adequately warning their customers of the limitations of these tests by making statements such as "more important limitations…are often less obvious," "companies often assume," and "tests also claim." However, the authors provide no analysis of company consent forms, website information, company brochures, or any other information from companies to back up their points. The one exception occurs when the authors discuss the limitation of one company (AncestryByDNA) linking ancestral informative markers to socially defined population boundaries (i.e. East Asian). The second problems is that the 14 respected scholars who wrote the article provide no clear guidance for companies considering genetic ancestry testing as a business venture or those already engaged in this business. Critique without evidentiary support and clear guidance of feasible ways to make improvements is not helpful for industry or other entities, or individuals concerned about genetic testing being performed in an ethical manner. Future articles on this topic should consider these points. Perry W. Payne, Jr. Department of Health Policy, George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Sciences, Washington, DC 20037, USA.