A Neighbor's Ancestry.com DNA Results Story

[spodey]

My neighbor is 50 years old in the DFW area of Texas.  Her mother is 72 and retired.  Let's call the mother "Mary" for purposes of this story.  I am trying to briefly recount the story I heard about Mary's adventure with Ancestry.com.

Mary gets interested in genealogy and her family history and whatever a site like Ancestry.com can provide.  So she signs up and does the DNA analysis with a cheek swab or whatever they use.  She signs papers allowing Ancestry to use her data for whatever they want to do.  She also signs papers allowing her contact info to be distributed to other Ancestry.com participants who appear to be DNA related to her.  Ancestry will provide a list of other people related to her who have also signed such documents/releases.

After some time, Mary gets a nice report from Ancestry giving her a rundown of "who" she is from the DNA sample she provided.  She also gets a list of people related to her -via DNA- and she doesn't recognize some of the names but she expected that could happen so it's no shock.  Who knows all their relatives anyway, right?

In a few days she gets a call from a female college student at the University of Oklahoma.  The student is doing a DNA/Genealogy paper and also used Ancestry.com to determine her DNA "story". Ancestry told the student that she was related to Mary and sent the contact info. They have a friendly chat and they discover they have no knowledge of each other or each other's families.  They agree to share some old family photos with each other via email.

When Mary receives pictures from the OU student she is amazed that she looks a lot like many of the family members in the old images of the student's family. (Mary told her daughter -my neighbor- that she had always laughed at the fact never "looked like" anyone in her known, extended family.) 

After lots of going back and forth with the student's family and her family members it was discovered that the student's great grand father was the biological father of Mary!   But Mary had a father who raised her in Oklahoma. 

Turns out, the biological father of Mary was a travelling banker from the east coast who was in Oklahoma working and setting up financial partnerships.  He apparently sowed some  wild oats during one trip and soon left town.  Mary's biological mother (now deceased) soon married a local beau who later was known as Mary's biological father (now deceased) ...but Ancestry said that "father" wasn't her "biological father" ...72 years later.

Mary has been in shock for quite a while but has a supporting husband and children.  The other side has cut off all communication because they think Mary might want some of the newly discovered biological father's estate.

One's DNA might lead to some surprising conclusions!

So, that's the story I heard.  Thanks for reading it.  
   

[woofytreats]

There's a very good book by Bill Griffeth ( the CNBC and Nightly Business Report anchor ) called "The Stranger in my Genes" that's along the same lines. Griffeth found out in his 50s after a DNA test that the man who he thought was his biological father was not and how he approaches everything with that knowledge...including his mom who was in her 90s when he received this information. DNA doesn't lie and you no doubt may or may not end up wanting to know the truth or what to do with it.

[Any of N]

I hope this comes across the right way, Spodey, but you did a nice job summarizing all that into a concise and readable post. Impressive.

That story is like a classic example of what can go wrong with your Ancestry.com participation. It's a lot like the one Woofy mentioned. Makes you wonder how often that sort of thing happens. People might want to think twice if they value their privacy and prefer to avoid complicating their lives. Or other people's lives.

[morf13]

This is the sort of drawbacks investigators face in the EAR case. A person in EAR's family man not even know who he is. Also, there are instances of illegitimate kids, kids from affairs, and adoption that can really muddy the waters

[nick]

My biggest thing with sharing DNA is the loss of civil rights afforded by the constitution of the United States. I am an unlikely person since I devoted my entire adult life to law enforcement in regards to DNA and its use to identify offenders but I have seen first hand how samples can be contaminated or tainted in some other way by the laboratory or even manipulated in some way. I value the system we have in place to protect citizens rights and keep LE in check without it we have a society that lacks the balance and checks needed to protect the innocent from wrongful prosecution. I personally would never submit DNA to blanket cover all crimes ever committed. The potential for misuse is too great to be left to LE without limits set in place.

[ripost]

Jan 31, 2018 2:40:51 GMT nick said:

My biggest thing with sharing DNA is the loss of civil rights afforded by the constitution of the United States. I am an unlikely person since I devoted my entire adult life to law enforcement in regards to DNA and its use to identify offenders but I have seen first hand how samples can be contaminated or tainted in some other way by the laboratory or even manipulated in some way. I value the system we have in place to protect citizens rights and keep LE in check without it we have a society that lacks the balance and checks needed to protect the innocent from wrongful prosecution. I personally would never submit DNA to blanket cover all crimes ever committed. The potential for misuse is too great to be left to LE without limits set in place.

Why can we not know some «genetic traits» if these are known? For example, the ear lobe shape is defined by the genes. This could help clear suspects