Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday September 14 2014, @03:59PM   Printer-friendly
from the can-you-handle-the-truth? dept.

"George Doe" is an American biologist who used the direct-to-consumer genetic testing service 23andMe as part of a course he was teaching on the genome — and made a surprising discovery about his family in the process.

His story is a cautionary tale about a man blinded by science failing to anticipate the social consequences of what he thought was a simple clinical revelation. A genetic testing service can reveal such things as a predisposition or otherwise to certain medical conditions - thus providing peace of mind or the advance notice that enables someone to plan for the possible outcomes. It can also reveal the origins of one's ancestors - at least to the accuracy of geographic region or race. But it can also reveal information that is perhaps best unknown in some cases: unknown half-siblings, or unexpected paternity relationships etc. Whether knowing such things is good or bad depends upon the individuals concerned - but the article contains a salutary lesson which resulted in the disintegration of an otherwise happy family relationship.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @04:07PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @04:07PM (#93036)

    Family couldn't deal with UNKNOWN child of husband pre-marriage (even unknown to the husband himself).

    • (Score: 2) by Tramii on Sunday September 14 2014, @04:32PM

      by Tramii (920) on Sunday September 14 2014, @04:32PM (#93043)

      I especially like the part where the author COMPLAINS to the company that people might be getting more information than they bargained for!

      Dear George: Why do you ask the questions when you clearly don't want to know the answers?

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:00PM

        by opinionated_science (4031) on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:00PM (#93052)

        I believe that some states of the US have blood test laws for marriage, due to the impossibility of tracking immigrants.

        In genetics though, the diversity is a good thing. The closest you want to be is probably 4th cousins, but that depends on your specific genotype. There are some diseases which after large genetic linkage regions.

        But the good things is when you get a genetics test, this proves you are human.

        Human first, everything else second...

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:29PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:29PM (#93067)

          > I believe that some states of the US have blood test laws for marriage, due to the impossibility of tracking immigrants.

          No. Blood tests for marriage have been about checking for diseases like STDs and measles.
          Most states dropped the requirement long before genetic testing was even feasible.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:12PM

          by frojack (1554) on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:12PM (#93121) Journal

          I believe that some states of the US have blood test laws for marriage, due to the impossibility of tracking immigrants.

          Yes, but these existed long before there was DNA analysis, and the existed to prevent specific diseases, not to map linage.
          http://www.intelihealth.com/article/the-truth-about-premarital-blood-testing [intelihealth.com]

          In fact, in most locations, the standard premarital blood tests check for evidence of syphilis (now or in the past) and rubella (German measles). Screening for other diseases in future newlyweds has in some cases included tuberculosis, gonorrhea, and HIV; of these, only HIV can be detected by blood tests. Only two states have passed legislation requiring HIV testing before marriage, but those laws did not last long at least in part because of very low detection rates.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:14PM (#93059)

        > Dear George: Why do you ask the questions when you clearly don't want to know the answers?

        You are just another geek blind to the realities of being human. It is called unintended consequences because they are unintended. It isn't an issue of not wanting to know the answers, it is all about not realizing the full implications of the question.

        The DNA testing service has a big time obligation to make sure that anyone who marks that checkbox is fully aware of what kind of results they might get. Not technical results, human results because normal people don't give a damn about the intricacies of the technology, nor should they have to because if only experts deserved to use the service then they shouldn't be selling it to anyone with a few bucks. What normal people care about is how the technology affects their lives.

        • (Score: 2) by tathra on Monday September 15 2014, @12:43AM

          by tathra (3367) on Monday September 15 2014, @12:43AM (#93218)

          "check this box if you want to see close family members in this search program" means exactly what it says: check this box if you want to know about any close family members (grandparents, parents, siblings, half-siblings, cousins, children). the only "unintended consequence" is that his mother flipped the fuck out over her husband having an affair over 20 years ago, which nobody could predict (seriously, thats a long time ago). the box states exactly what information its going to present; its not the company's fault if people don't realize that they might have close relatives they don't know about. hell, as far as i can tell thats the whole point of checking the box, to find out if you have any close relatives you don't know about.

        • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday September 15 2014, @01:35AM

          by hemocyanin (186) on Monday September 15 2014, @01:35AM (#93226) Journal

          The family's reaction to something that happened decades ago, a reaction that is sanctioned by our current social values, is what is flawed here. Blaming this guy's inner geek is to shift the blame from where it belongs -- on the notion that in a whole lifetime, people will love but one person -- and cover up the real poison in our culture. Seriously, to blow up decades of happy marriage for the reason outlined here, should be as laughable as using "she actually likes the taste of rutabagas." I'm hoping it wasn't actually decades of good marriage and this was but the excuse, but the fact that people take the excuse seriously, when they wouldn't the rutabaga excuse, is a disease in our culture.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Monday September 15 2014, @02:53PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Monday September 15 2014, @02:53PM (#93474)

          If they kept idiots from buying their service, they would lose a lot of business.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 2) by khallow on Monday September 15 2014, @09:56PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 15 2014, @09:56PM (#93664) Journal

          The DNA testing service has a big time obligation to make sure that anyone who marks that checkbox is fully aware of what kind of results they might get.

          No, they don't. I consider this a huge learning opportunity for the public.

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:19PM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:19PM (#93060) Homepage

        Reminds me of the Law and Order: Special Victims Unit (basically a cop TV show about rape and molesting) where this pregnant lady is pressured to allow the cops to take a DNA sample of the baby still inside her to get evidence against a serial rapist. She agrees, and it turns out the father of her baby is the rapist. Her husband is horrified and asks her why she didn't have an abortion, and she basically tells him in a nice way that he couldn't get her pregnant so that was the only way she could have a baby.

        The episode closes with the news that the lady's husband initiated a divorce.

        I have another true story of a coworker who got some girl pregnant, and sacrificed a sports scholarship to a university to be there to raise his kid. 2 years after the kid was born, he suspects something is up so he goes and has the kid DNA-tested, and it turns out it's not his kid after all. He flipped his shit, yelling and punching walls at work, coming in stoned, beating on things with wrenches etc. He was subsequently fired, but word on the street is that he's back together with the girl and raising the kid as his own.

        Ha-HA! What a cuck!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @06:26PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @06:26PM (#93103)

          I have another true story of a coworker who got some girl pregnant, and sacrificed a sports scholarship to a university to be there to raise his kid.

          Ha-HA! What a cuck!

          Women do this all the time, you don't laugh at someone for the moral failings of their partner. Depending on many factors, the guys choice to stay in the relationship may actually be worthy of respect. Your attitude however simply serves to betray your own immaturity and insecurity.

          • (Score: 1, Troll) by frojack on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:16PM

            by frojack (1554) on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:16PM (#93123) Journal

            And your answer only serves to betray your gender.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:40PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:40PM (#93134)

              > And your answer only serves to betray your gender.

              Wow. Are you off your meds this weekend? Your vicious lack of empathy is a couple of notches higher than usual.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @12:47AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @12:47AM (#93220)

              I don't get it. I know people from both genders who would say exactly that. You don't have to be related by blood to be somebody's parent. Being a parent when the sperm-donor is absent is a very respectable thing.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @01:39AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @01:39AM (#93227)

              Uh... Your answer betrays your age? Or your total lack of social development.

              I hope you are trolling and not just a life fail.

        • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:25PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:25PM (#93129)

          Serious life derailment. I predict a soon-to-be heavy drinker. One might even call that cuckold... ETHANOL-FUELED. The circle of life continues to spin.

        • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday September 15 2014, @10:21AM

          by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday September 15 2014, @10:21AM (#93337) Journal

          > Reminds me of the ... cop TV show

          > ...

          > I have another true story of a coworker who got some girl pregnant

          You know that sometimes the things that happen on the flickerbox are just make-believe, don't you?

    • (Score: 1) by Jiro on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:27PM

      by Jiro (3176) on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:27PM (#93130)

      I don't see "pre-marriage" in the article. If the child was post-marriage, I could see how it results in a divorce.

      (On the other hand, if it really is pre-marriage, this is a lame enough reason for divorce that it implies the parents already had other problems.)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:47PM (#93138)

        > I don't see "pre-marriage" in the article.

        Neither do I, nor do I see mention of the suprise brother's age relative to the author's (one way or the other). It is kind of weird the author did not spell it out though.

        > if it really is pre-marriage, this is a lame enough reason for divorce that it implies the parents already had other problems.

        Not necessarily. Marriage isn't the only reason to have an expectation of sexual fidelity.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @04:10PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @04:10PM (#93037)

    ... and some of them do not result in smiling people sharing a barbeque with friends and family at the park on a warm summer's day. Exhibit #3,628,800

    As a side note, I suspect that if you played the game "What if you could go back in time and essentially frozen technology at a certain point", the average person would probably pick a date that occurred when they were teenagers. Regardless of what era it was when you asked the question.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Theophrastus on Sunday September 14 2014, @04:33PM

    by Theophrastus (4044) on Sunday September 14 2014, @04:33PM (#93044)

    ..needed money for tuition or food or somesuch, took a job as a programmer for a medical geneticist. It was fascinating work -they- were doing (i was essentially writing SQL code, bleh). Turns out if you keep good track of a "human pedigree" (aka 'family tree') alongside whether each individual demonstrated a pathology you can back-calculate things like: on which chromosome the genetic 'lesion' occurs. But you've got to have an accurate pedigree as far back as possible. Surprise! relatively often the fathers of record, turned out to make no genetic sense to be the father of paternity; which the geneticists blithely logged as: "non-paternity". ...hence the tie-in to this posting.

    The slightly more curious ones were, the more rare, yet less rare than one might suppose: non-maternity-s. "how the hell can they get away with that??" well, typically, (and one presumes it doesn't happen much anymore?), two sisters, one married and the one that wasn't, went off on a protracted vacation, possibly "to the continent", and the married sister returned with a bouncy new baby (of course, in reality it was the other sister's)

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Ryuugami on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:20PM

      by Ryuugami (2925) on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:20PM (#93062)

      The slightly more curious ones were, the more rare, yet less rare than one might suppose: non-maternity-s. "how the hell can they get away with that??" well, typically, (and one presumes it doesn't happen much anymore?), two sisters, one married and the one that wasn't, went off on a protracted vacation, possibly "to the continent", and the married sister returned with a bouncy new baby (of course, in reality it was the other sister's)

      An error in the hospital, where the wrong baby is given to the mother, is more likely then a vacation long enough to go from "not yet showing visible signs of pregnancy" to "not showing signs of recently giving birth".

      --
      If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
      • (Score: 2) by Theophrastus on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:32PM

        by Theophrastus (4044) on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:32PM (#93071)

        I admire your ability to judge the likeliness of such events typically 100 years ago in Europe and the States. But until i'm shown your data, impugning the caution of maternity wards, I'll tend to favor the stories told by the descendants in retrospect. ("look! great great Aunt Ethyl had the baby traveling with her niece while visiting the old country" etc)

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by cafebabe on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:32PM

      by cafebabe (894) on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:32PM (#93072) Journal

      My old biology teacher was a relative introvert but he had an interesting method to liven parent evenings. If he found himself talking to a blue-eyed couple, he would subtly check that the father believed he was a biological parent. Over the subsequent weeks, he would check to see if the children also had blue eyes. He kept a running tally of this and found that approximately 12% of the children failed this test. I don't know why he told us this but the figure he collated was close to the international non-paternity rate of 10%.

      --
      1702845791×2
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:37PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:37PM (#93076)
        • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Sunday September 14 2014, @06:11PM

          by cafebabe (894) on Sunday September 14 2014, @06:11PM (#93099) Journal

          That was very informative and obviously my old biology teacher may have been unaware that HERC2 and OCA2 was required to make brown pigment and therefore blue-eyed parents with one of each could have a child with brown eyes. With unweighted probability, one parent has a 2/3 probability of having one if they definitely don't have the other and a 6/7 probability of having either. So, the unweighted probability of two blue-eyed parents having a brown-eyed child is 1/2 * 2/3 * 6/7 = 2/7. However, due to the proximity of the genes on chromosome 15, the probability is weighted and assumed to be approximately 2%.

          The remainder is infidelity and is assumed to be approximately 10%.

          --
          1702845791×2
        • (Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:10PM

          by SlimmPickens (1056) on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:10PM (#93119)

          That's interesting. It's got me very curious about my own eyes which are always hazel in the centre, green on the outside, but very occasionally (I've probably noticed it on less than ten occasions) have a thin strip of darkish blue around the outside. I always assumed it was to do with ambient light but now I'm more curious.

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:18PM

            by frojack (1554) on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:18PM (#93126) Journal

            In your case Slimm, I'm suspecting it was all those drugs ....

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:48PM

              by SlimmPickens (1056) on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:48PM (#93140)

              It's been that way all my life. Wikipedia explains that all hazel eyes can change colour and that some people additionally have uneven melanin.

              • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday September 14 2014, @09:43PM

                by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 14 2014, @09:43PM (#93168) Journal

                FWIW, my eyes have an apparently floating wavery disk of color sort of orange-ish brown against a hazel background. The disk is sometimes extended and sometimes retracted (only a bit, you can always see it) so the color appears to change. I don't know why, as it's not related to level of illumination, or anything else I've checked. It looks weird to me, but nobody has ever remarked on it, so perhaps you need to be as close as my image in a mirror for it to be evident.

                --
                Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @04:16AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @04:16AM (#93260)

                  Hi there

                  Spent my life being told that eye colour does not change yet my eyes have gone from blue to green now to grey. Shows up in old photos quite well. Blue while young. Greener through to mid 20s. Now heading to grey. There is a yellow streak which has widened over the years. Before you ask, yes, parts of my biology are just ass over tits fucked up. My own brother can pass me by in the street now and not recognise me.

            • (Score: 2) by EvilJim on Monday September 15 2014, @03:34AM

              by EvilJim (2501) on Monday September 15 2014, @03:34AM (#93246) Journal

              Lol, I read somewhere that yellow around the pupil was a sign of built up toxins

          • (Score: 1) by hman on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:16AM

            by hman (2656) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:16AM (#93908)

            Yup, you are not the only one.
            My wife also has greyish-blue irises on the outside, (darkish) green on the inside. Sometimes (say 5 times in 18 years) for 6 months some bigger specks of green came out on the outside. Not notable with normal light (seem almost grey), extremely nice in yellow, powerfull sunlight.
            I have greyish-blue eyes.
            Two of my three children have eyes very similar to my wife ones. They all started with greyish-azure, and the two bigger ones slowly developed the inner greener circle after a few years. The third one has lighter and more blueish eyes, and about now has that age. Don't know yet if he'll get the same ones.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday September 14 2014, @06:59PM

        by frojack (1554) on Sunday September 14 2014, @06:59PM (#93114) Journal

        e would subtly check that the father believed he was a biological parent.

        How does one do that subtly, exactly?

        And what actual effect would this belief (if subtly ascertained) have in determining the the probability of fatherhood?

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:23PM

          by cafebabe (894) on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:23PM (#93127) Journal

          I'm not sure how he checked but there's no point continuing the experiment if he was talking to a step-father, uncle, grandfather, foster parent or suchlike.

          --
          1702845791×2
        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday September 15 2014, @12:16PM

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 15 2014, @12:16PM (#93383)

          He might have been massaging the statistics, if you assume the divorce rate is "around 50%" and that most people don't mate based on eye color (lets say its random for the sake of argument and ignore racial variations) then you can "correct" the stats.

          Lets say in an ethnic group 20% of them are blue eyed and 80% are not, thats a nice 1/5 to 4/5 ratio. So "all" males of a non-father status will be blue eyed 20% of the time. Add in the same 50% divorce rate fraction. We'll ignore chicks who stay single or switch hit to other chicks after "the" marriage so assume 100% have some dude in their life of which 1/5 are blue and 4/5 are brown.

          Now you make this little graphical table-ish thing of odds of eye color vs father's eye color vs the general population doing a bunch of simple multiplication, and then subtract some results, and use that as a crude correction factor.

          There are "better" statistical ways, but this way sounds "intutive"

      • (Score: 2) by Theophrastus on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:06PM

        by Theophrastus (4044) on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:06PM (#93115)

        Your interesting story drags out of me (to the general boredom of all) more information from my stint in association with that medical genetics lab: they had a running probability of 5% non-paternities *within their studies*. that is, among those who volunteered, therefore it's presumed that from within the general population it is likely higher. so your 'old biology teacher' may've not been far off.

        Also, i recall this fun-fact of conditional probability that they kept track of: if the family had 4 or more children, the probability of that the first or the last child was a non-paternity spiked significantly. this was seen to support the notion that people are more likely to get married if they are pregnant without regard to actual parentage -and- more likely to dissolve the marriage if a pregnancy occurs which is ..unaccountable with genetic source within that marriage.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @04:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @04:42PM (#93048)
    More proof that PhDs can be stupid. Like duh. Isn't he a PhD biologist? He should know what it means. Why would he even need to "agonize" with his sister for 3 days over it? The odds are either there's an error in the tests or someone's been cheating. So if you don't like risking such results (e.g. divorce) you shut up.

    Most doctors know to shut up about such stuff (they normally have enough problems to deal with).
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:25PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:25PM (#93064)

      > Most doctors know to shut up about such stuff

      Most doctors have a job where they get a daily education in how to work with people and the human consequences of medical science. They get tens of thousands of hours of hands-on experience with that and a professional culture where they can also learn from the experiences of others doing the same thing on a daily basis too.

      A PhD working in a lab, who never sees the people he is experimenting on, doesn't even know their names much less talks to them or even interacts with them afterwards has basically no chance to learn about how the science affects the lives of people. Your casual dismissal of this situation as a "no duh" event suggests that you too have a similar level of non-experience of people and the human condition.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Whoever on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:25PM

    by Whoever (4524) on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:25PM (#93063) Journal

    What if a someone used this service and discovered that the person they were married to was a half-sibling? Would the marriage be invalid? Could the couple continue to remain married? (Assumes the couple living somewhere that regards marriages between siblings as illegal/invalid).

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:44PM (#93083)

      Sounds like a "director's twist" in a new production of Oedipus Rex...

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by cafebabe on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:45PM

        by cafebabe (894) on Sunday September 14 2014, @07:45PM (#93137) Journal
        --
        1702845791×2
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @08:24PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @08:24PM (#93146)

          Too brilliant. Now, someone needs to come up with 42 Essential Yahoo/OMG Stories.

          It could be Oedipus Rex, Where a chap kills his father, and causes a lot of bother.

          - "That's Entertainment"

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Monday September 15 2014, @01:43AM

          by hemocyanin (186) on Monday September 15 2014, @01:43AM (#93228) Journal

          Interesting. 42.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @05:09AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @05:09AM (#93274)
      Such an event has precedence: Genetic_sexual_attraction [wikipedia.org] should get you started.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @06:16AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @06:16AM (#93291)

    And divorce will be one of your lesser worries...

  • (Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:24AM

    by Rivenaleem (3400) on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:24AM (#93909)

    The headline seems to suggest Genetic Testing causes divorce. It would appear that extra-marital sex (and then covering it up) was the cause. How an someone think to blame the test for the result?

    It's like saying someone was sent to jail for failing a DNA test. No s/he was sent to jail for the crime he committed, the DNA test put him/her at the scene etc.