DNA Resources

Just as there is not a static number of sources needed to demonstrate reasonably exhaustive research, there is not a static number of matches needed to prove a conclusion. Standards 53--Extent of DNA evidence, and 50---Assembling conclusions from the evidence are closely related and provide best practice guidance to help us answer the "how much is enough" question. Essentially, a researcher should include enough atDNA matches to eliminate competing hypotheses for an answer to a specific research question. Thus, it is better to not focus on the number of matches, but rather to focus on what each match adds to the body of evidence that eliminates potential ancestors as the source of the shared atDNA. For example, X-DNA matches might provide added value to the body of evidence because the unique inheritance pattern may aid in eliminating hypothetical ancestors. Standard 50 reminds us that we assemble evidence so that the body of evidence is compatible with a single answer to the research question. Documentary research provides the basis for pedigree evaluation that also helpsus to select atDNA matches that provide the best evidence to rule out multiple common ancestral pathways. So as is frequently the case in genealogy, "it depends" is the right answer.

When two people share a DNA segment, they could have inherited it from common ancestors. Identifying those common ancestors begins broadly by considering all ancestors in each person’s pedigree as the shared DNA’s source. Correlation, analysis, and inferential reasoning systematically eliminate parts of the pedigree from consideration. Pedigree evaluation for both people is indispensable. Eliminating branches assures that you address the possibility of multiple common ancestors or inaccurate trees.

Standard 52 does not require documenting every parent-child connection on every ancestral line on every relevant match’s pedigree. The number of pedigrees requiring full pedigree evaluation depends on the research problem. Detailing selected pedigrees within a portfolio element is not always necessary. Citing online, publicly accessible, source-cited trees can suffice. If, however, an online tree includes anonymization, the applicant discloses those anonymized parent-child relationships within their BCG submission.

Standard 52 does not specify how to evaluate pedigrees. It asks genealogists to consider the variables of multiple common ancestral paths and pedigrees’ accuracy, depth, and completeness. Gaps in relevant pedigrees must be mitigated. A gap could be the source of shared DNA despite known common ancestors in compared pedigrees.

See "Skillbuilding: The Truth About Pedigree Evaluation."

Some strategies to address issues in tree completeness include but are not limited to

• • Autosomal DNA analysis techniques including clustering, genetic networks, chromosome mapping, visual phasing, and segment triangulation
  • Clearly articulated explanations justifying the discard of ancestral branches as irrelevant to the research question
  • Clearly articulated discussions of correlation of genetic matches from both sides of a common ancestral couple (assuming those parents do not share common ancestors.)

All scientific conclusions rest on the ability of others to access research data to verify or dispute a conclusion, which otherwise would resemble fiction. Standard 54 describes the level of detail necessary for others to verify or challenge genetic relationship conclusions. If readers cannot see details of shared DNA, they cannot verify the conclusion.

A researcher might use one of the following strategies to meet Standard 54:

• • Upload the data to a public website, with test takers’ informed consent.
  • Embed or append screenshots of data in a privately shared file.
  • Authors seeking publication of a case study may provide editors with access to match lists, depending on company terms of use. If editors verify the results, include this opinion in the publication. Authors encourage test takers to change shared passwords after editors complete their reviews.

Private sharing provides the ability to discuss details of living people with one person or within a small group of people who are subject to ethical guidelines prohibiting redisclosure. Private sharing is standard practice for supervisory relationships, credentialing, teaming, and scholarship in many professions. Privately sharing information about living people is common, for example, in ethical genealogists’ reports that identify, without permission, potential heirs, biological kin of adoptees, and relatives of service members unaccounted for from past conflicts.

Publishing implies dissemination and distribution to the public. Recorded lectures are publications requiring either informed consent of identified individuals or anonymizing. Similarly, lectures outside small closed groups require informed consent of identified living individuals or anonymizing.

BCG accepts data about deceased people and requires neither permission from heirs nor documentation verifying the death.

You need permission to publish if data such as the amount and location of shared autosomal DNA, Y-STR values, or mitochondrial mutations is shared together with the test-taker’s name, account name, or other personally identifying information such as names of parents, grandparents, or other close biological relatives.

It is always best to contact living individuals to determine their wishes about publication. This can lead to one of four results:

1. 1. The person gives permission to publish their DNA data together with personally identifying details such as their name and parents' names.
   2. The person gives permission to publish their DNA data but wishes to be anonymized. This anonymization may extend to the individual’s parents, and in some cases, grandparents.
   3. The person declines permission to publish anything about them or their DNA. If so, we honor and respect their wishes. We might seek evidence from a comparable test taker.
   4. The person does not respond. In this case, we may publish their DNA data but not personally identifying details such as their name. It may also be prudent to anonymize information about their parents or grandparents, even if those individuals are deceased. Publishing anonymized DNA test results of a non-responsive match is a strategy of last resort.

The decision about how much family information to omit depends on the unique case. Genealogists employ common sense and empathy to make the decision.

Matches might not notice messages sent through the testing company's communication systems, requiring further work to contact non-responsive matches. If the match is not uniquely identified, researching trees or surname lists they have posted might identify them. Profiles might give details like location and age. A shared match who knows the non-responsive match might facilitate direct communication. Obituaries might name the match or other living relatives. Public databases, social media, and Google searches can help. Responses are more likely through social media. Search for an address or phone number.

Submission of work products to BCG for credentialing is considered private sharing. If you are the DNA test taker and, thus, owner of the match list, you may provide details about your own matches without permission. However, if you use details from another living person’s match list, even if you manage that kit, BCG asks you to provide evidence of that person’s informed consent to disclose details of that match list to BCG judges. Email authorizations are sufficient. Authorizations are not included in the page count.

All applicants sign the Genealogist’s Code of Ethics which includes the statement “I will not privately share a match list without the list owner’s consent.” Applicant work samples submitted to BCG are considered private sharing. Therefore, the applicant should obtain permission from all DNA match list owners to privately share their details with BCG. The applicant should retain evidence of the permission in private files but are not required to submit the permission to BCG. To comply with the Code of Ethics, the applicant must acknowledge the permission in each written work sample that includes DNA data from match list owners.

Privacy considerations apply to lectures using genetic evidence. Genealogists make a diligent effort to contact living individuals to discuss privacy options. If the individual provides informed consent to share their details for education purposes, the lecturer acknowledges it in some combination of visual aids, accompanying educational materials, and oral statement. As with other types of work, a lecturer honors an individual’s privacy wishes. Lecturers may anonymize the person and present the DNA data of non-responsive matches. Sometimes, it may be prudent to extend the anonymization to the living person’s parents or grandparents, even if they are deceased. No permission is needed to anonymize or blur information when screen images are used to teach, including about testing company tools.

Because genetic evidence can provide indirect evidence of a specific relationship, proof arguments are the best choice for presenting conclusions about a genetic relationship. They detail the evidence and reasoning supporting the conclusion.

When discussing Y-DNA test results, the information items that should be included for each test taker whose results are claimed as supporting a common Y-line are

• • testing company used
  • whether the test takers are in the same Y-DNA haplogroup (or the same branch with some being placed on later sub-branches)
  • number of markers each person tested or the test name (for example, Y-37 STR, Y-111 STR, Big Y-700, Y Elite, YSEQ-Delta, etc.)
  • which marker(s), if any, differ between the test takers (by marker name and value; for example, DYS449 has a value of 29 in all test
    takers except John Smith who has a value of 30)
  • if pertinent, which markers vary from the modal haplotype
  • whether the differing markers are known to be fast-mutating or have some other relevant characteristic such as test takers sharing a rare marker value

The information above should be included even if the data can be found online by viewing a public DNA project page. The work sample should contain enough information to evaluate the conclusion even if the web page becomes inaccessible or is modified. Not including this information would be similar to stating that a probate file provides evidence for a father-son relationship but not stating which document and statement within the probate file support the assertion.

In some cases, additional information may be included to support a conclusion. For example, if the differing markers can be mapped to the likely ancestor who first had the mutation that might be discussed (when all descendants of son X have the same mutation and the descendants of other sons in the tree do not have that mutation this may provide supporting evidence that the tree contains the proper relationship links). Other examples include whether a test taker is in a rare Y-DNA haplogroup, a haplogroup is primarily found in one biogeographical area, the value of a particular marker is rare, and so on.

When discussing mtDNA test results, the information that should be included for each test taker whose results are claimed as supporting a common mtDNA line are

• • testing company used
  • whether the test takers are in the same mtDNA haplogroup (or the same branch with some being placed on later sub-branches)
  • test resolution or number of markers each person tested (HVR1 only, HVR1 and HVR2, full mtDNA sequence tests, whole genome sequence, etc.)
  • which mtDNA locations, if any, differ between the test takers (by marker/location name and value, for example, Jane Doe and Mary Smith share the mutation A247G, but only Jane has 315.1C)
  • if pertinent, which reference sequence was used for comparisons (CRS or RSRS)
  • whether the differing markers have some relevant characteristic such as a test taker having a heteroplasmy

The information above should be included even if the data can be found online by viewing a public DNA project page. The work sample should contain enough information to evaluate the conclusion even if the web page becomes inaccessible or is modified. Not including this information would be similar to stating that a probate file provides evidence for a mother-child relationship but not stating which document and statement within the probate file supports the assertion.

In some cases, additional information may be included to support a conclusion. For example, if a test taker is in a rare mtDNA haplogroup, the haplogroup is primarily found in one biogeographical area, and so on.