The Times wants your views: DNA ethnicity results

[Tricia_2]

Having read through many of the comments on this thread, I am really surprised at the number of people who are against DNA testing - or, at least, not in favour. I really thought that this would be something that most genealogists would be keen on. I understand the price factor. This is what put me off for longer than I would have liked. But knowing about one's ancestral DNA - and potentially linking up with related researchers - seems so exciting to me.

[normamac]

I have no plans to take a DNA test.

I found my family history both paternal and maternal are Scottish.  Family lines born in England
all traced back to Scotland too. This goes back to 1594 for one line.Most go back to the 1700's.

I do see how DNA would help some people .

Norma

[Radcliff]

Good morning,
DNA, Personal choice isn't it,
the marvels of modern science, I think the use of DNA in tracking your ethnicity is extremely interesting, my fathers family I have had no problems researching,and I would like to take the Colenso line back further than Cornwall, I do hope one day, to be able to discover ,my maternal Grandfather's blood line,  I only have a scrap of paper with a name on it, and there are many men of the same name in a small area, deceased I must point out,
Fantastic thread, mixed responses, and some excellent points, put across, at the end of the day I am in favor , and would in the future, use DNA, but not yet I have lots more to discover here in this country

[gaffy]

Not for me I'm afraid, I like my genealogy more as an art than a science, if you get my drift.

As someone previously posted, I too like to "plod along" and enjoy the journey - finding out where that journey originally started isn't the Holy Grail for me.

The enjoyment I get is like reading a really interesting story with the added challenge of having to find the words in the first place.
   

[whiteout7]

I also have no plans to take a DNA test.

I don't see the point in proving anything with DNA, unless you are adopted and need to find close relatives because you can not even get back 3 generations from yourself.

[garstonite]

I had my DNA taken 8 years ago - paid for by a relative in Sante Fe ,USA ....He had no siblings and his parents were dead - he wasn't married and had no children - his g grandfather left Garston,Liverpool ,England in 1926 for New York -
He believed he had no family and only contacted me because he found his g grandfather in the 1901 census in Garston ...............for him it was an incredible result because he found out he had over 100 Oakes family members still alive and was delighted he had "family" ...My wife and I went to Santa Fe to visit him 6 years ago and we are in constant contact - so GREAT RESULT for him

for me - in 8 years I have had over 2000 "matches" on FamilytreeDNA....NONE anywhere near a family match - my 67DNA has produced 1 match at 67 with a difference of 3 .....a complete waste of money in my eyes ......but that is just my opinion

[percy porter]

21 pages so far and to much for me to wade through and it might influence my current feelings.

I am in favour of DNA testing, mainly because I want to prove or otherwise the origins of the family name which is supposed to be a corruption taken from the migrants of Brettony in France.

As my children are 1st generation New Zealanders, except for my daughter who was born in Scotland all my previous generations obviously came from England. Whilst it may help me to find some relations I would not necessarily use that as an avenue to pursue any relations.

My current locked door (I do not believe in brick walls) is around 1800 so I do not think DNA would help me find the key.

Alan Britton

NZ

[AMBLY]

Up until recently, I wasn't at all interested in DNA for genealogical purposes; I didn't know much about it nor feel compelled to find out. I guess I probably had misconceptions is a vague sort of way, about what it was and how it could possibly help.

But then a series of programmes was made and aired here in NZ late last year, about searching for Genealogy ties and histories via DNA - they had 2 'celebrities' per week who, having done the test and been entered the (a)  worldwide database - received their matches (in my mind matches of around 900 seemed to be an average) then travelled the globe to look out some of the matches - that is:  places and people. Some of the episodes were quite fascinating and often quite revealing. Taken as fact until proven otherwise :-) (That's a bit of a genealogical paradox!)

And it made me think, gosh - I would actually love to know where my DNA comes from - for one thing,  if it could provide any clues as to my LATTO origins (beyond Scotland, that is).

Then I looked into the costs, and of course I wouldn't get to go on an all expenses-paid televised jaunt around the continents meeting up with umtweenth removed cousins...but still!

Cheers
AMBLY

[DavidG02]

Is this about genetic DNA testing or Forensic DNA Testing? I wonder if people mix the 2

Hi David,

Can you explain the difference please as the comparison didn't cross my mind until I read your post?

Annie

First thing , the differences are how I see them. Its not on any official list.

I see Genetic DNA being the discussion we have here. The Y Chromosome and the X-Chromosome and all the other bits that go with it. How these relate to being matched with parents and other family members. The pros and cons of using it for genealogy. Its the Haplogroup discussions etc.

I see Forensic DNA as being the criminal side. The CSI take a sample and analyse it in 33 minutes so the police can match it to someone who '' just happens'' to be on the database.

In reality it can take months to sort out. There are also different methods between countries. ie Police in England use it to 'exclude ' people yet in Australia the focus is on finding DNA which matches the suspect in custody. The difference is minute but the Australian system ( in my opinion) can focus an investigation into a narrow channel.

The reason I asked the question is I feel that we have , mostly, grown up with DNA presented in court as being infallible , when the reality is there are still questions about it. I would hope people aren't confusing the 2.

I accept people view DNA for genealogical purposes as a gimmick and I accept there are charlatans who are in the marketplace taking money without due care.

I still have many questions myself but maybe like my American cousins , I in Australia, want to have that connection to England. Or Wales and Scotland and Ireland. Wherever it may be , or it could be all of them.

Maybe the cynic in me doesn't trust the tales told by parents or grandparents. But that leaves me between a rock and a hard place , because the cynic also tells me to be careful of DNA companies.