From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk   
      
   In message , Doug Laidlaw   
    writes:   
   >Firstly, I am a number-cruncher only when I am bored and have nothing   
   >better to do.   
      
   I'm not sure what that has to do with DNA, but let's go on.   
      
   >  I always think of the man who discovered he was related to   
   >Carthaginian sailors and was _so_ pleased.  [The Carthaginians were   
   >good as sailors, but for their army, they engaged mercenaries.]   
      
   Anyone who's _that_ bothered about who he's descended from that far back   
   - or even _much_ more recently (say two or three centuries), whether   
   nobility, serial killer, or whatever - has IMO a poor grasp of what's   
   important. Sure, it's _nice_ to find you are descended from nobility,   
   royalty, or someone famous; I'd be equally happy to find someone   
   infamous! (I've found a few rich farmers and merchants, but mostly just   
   Ag Lab or miner. Nobody _that_ famous.)   
      
   [I'm very dubious of any connection being found to Carthaginian sailors   
   (presumably as opposed to soldiers), whether by DNA or otherwise; that   
   far back is too far for any link to be reliable.]   
   >   
   >Secondly, DNA testing has often done more harm than good.  In one case,   
      
   Which meaning of "often" are you using? Sure, with the huge growth in   
   DNA testing recently, there have been _lots_ of harmful outcomes (by   
   some definition of harmful); however, that's not the same as "more often   
   than not", which your wording _implies_, though does not say explicitly.   
   One could equally say that, say, penicillin "often" caused allergic   
   reactions, simply because of its widespread use; that doesn't mean it   
   didn't far _more_ often save lives.   
      
   >the applicant discovered she had none of her father's DNA.  In a case I   
   >have just been reading, a couple decided to take a DNA test.  It showed   
   >that the male partner was related to a serial killer.  His g-f couldn't   
   >handle this, and left him.  Maybe she was looking for a way to split,   
   >and this was her excuse, as the comforters on social media suggested.   
      
   Even if she wasn't, there's little evidence that such tendencies are   
   genetic - at least, not that stand up to scrutiny.   
      
   >But in both cases, there were facts that it was better not to know.  I   
      
   Depends; some people might actually _like_ to find an infamous relative!   
      
   >have enough inherited illnesses; I don't need to know about any others.   
      
   Your choice. If there happen to be some for which preventative action is   
   known and well-proven, it's your choice not to know whether you've got   
   them until too late for the treatments to be effective.   
      
   I'm not pro or anti DNA testing; to me that's like being pro or anti the   
   colour blue. And certainly, it is often over-sold - both in the   
   genealogy field and the medical (and social, ethnological, ...). I just   
   take against apparent prejudice against anything based on bad   
   statistics.   
   --   
      
      
   (Where has the "treat northern Ireland differently" option gone?)   
      
   Three- (or four-) way referendum, if we _have_ to have another one.   
   --   
   Petitions are still unfair.   
   https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 255soft.uk #fairpetitions   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   The early worm gets the bird.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)