Warning on Ancestry (and other) DNA tests?

[MLMshouldbeillegal]

Ancestry, My Heritage and the other DNA testing companies are all pushing their tests as the ideal Christmas gift, and they are cheaper than ever. Ancestry had a black Friday offer for £50, My Heritage even cheaper at £39.

AIBU to think these tests should come with a wee health warning? That although it's marketed as a "find out your ethnicity" tool, in fact it might reveal some long-hidden family secrets?

I have tested with Ancestry and uploaded my data to other sites too. No surprises on my tree, matches with distant cousins who all fit into the picture as I know it. But I also go genealogical client work and I'm currently working with a man in his 70s who was given one of the tests for father's day back in June and is trying to process the fact that he is not matching with other descendants of his grandfather. Or at least the man he thought was his grandfather. So in later life, he's trying to come to terms with his much loved grandfather, who his father absolutely adored, is probably not his biological relative. It's a lot to deal with.

The testing companies really push the "find out if you're part Viking, part Native American" in their marketing but that aspect isn't really very accurate - My Heritage says I'm >2% Iraq/Iran/Turkey and I'm definitely not. Ancestry is more accurate given what I know about my tree.

Taking one of these tests could open up a whole can of worms in terms of relationships in the family, in this generation or further back with people who are long dead, and who you can't get answers from. For some people it can be a lot to process and I dont think the implications are properly laid out.

Ancestry is owned by the Mormons though is it not? I thought their not so altruistic background to genealogy and family tree gathering was so that they could baptize and save us all rather than flog our info? I may be totally wrong on this.

@Subbaxeo

I’ve bought one of these for myself. My mum’s birth certificate was blank under father so Im actively hoping to see if I have some relatives somewhere! I’d love to know who my grandfather was but everyone who could possibly know has been dead for a while. People aren’t stupid, they can simply not choose to have these tests if they’re worried about any possibility of unexpected results.

It is the case that even if you yourself don't test, if enough of your relatives do you can be 'found.' That is the thing. BUT it is more of an issue if you're in the US where the testing is really popular, than here (at least atm.)

I don't think it will ever really 'take off' in Europe the way it has in the US where people are obsessed with their roots to the 'Old World' (I am a Yank.)

I think the US/UK law was the source of my puzzlement. Thanks.

In the US, is it possible that those who have used such websites could get a call saying "your uncle was a murderer"?

I think it probably even varies state by state.

There was a case solved by DNA recently in the UK. Melanie Road was murdered in Bath in 1984. Samples were taken at the time, but in the mid-80s DNA was in its infancy.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-36245888

In 2014 the daughter of the man who killed Melanie was arrested and her DNA was taken. This led police to her father, who was arrested, charged and convicted. I listened to a podcast about this too, I think it was by either ITV or Sky. As far as I remember, the police had to jump through numerous hoops and legal hurdles to get permission to run the searches.

@MissAmbrosia yes in a nutshell. the mormons started collecting baptism records and marriage records a few decades ago so they could collect members

I traced my biological Dad a couple of years ago through public records and knew it was highly likely he didn't know about my existence, so the poor thing had a big shock at me rocking up in his life, luckily he took it really well and we now have a great relationship.
I can only imagine how many more people are getting shocks like my Dad with these kits!
It is definitely a lot harder for people to keep these types of things a secret now and for some that is going to be a great thing and for others it may lead to upset and heartbreak

Ancestry is not owned by Mormons. It is owned by Blackstone group en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blackstone_Group.

The free of charge familysearch.org family tree website is owned by the LDS church (Mormons). That is a different organisation from ancestry.

Birth records etc of course are not new things. In about 1832 in England we started with formal birth certs. which are a matter of public record.

I took an Ancestry test specifically because I was hoping I wasn’t related to my toxic, abusive mother and the father who abandoned me. I was kind of hoping I was accidentally switched at birth as I never fitted into my family. had different colour eyes to my parents and all 7 siblings, taller even than even the males, they’re cold blooded, I’m warm etc.

I was pretty devastated to find out I was related to them after all!

One good thing to come out of it was that I was contacted an 89 year old man (through his son) who had been adopted on the side of the world as a toddler and we discovered my father’s aunt was his mother so I was able to put him in touch with that side of his family and he finally got a picture of his mother. None of them knew she’d given up a child for adoption but she was long dead anyway. At least he didn’t go to his grave not knowing who she was and having seen what she looked like so it was well worth it IMO.

I also discovered why I loved potatoes so much as well!

DH also did one and found out his ancestry was from his neighbouring country (not UK) that he and his countrymen had a fierce hatred of. That was rather funny and his parents were pretty shocked but they took it good naturedly.

I found a sister

@MissAmbrosia

Ancestry is owned by the Mormons though is it not? I thought their not so altruistic background to genealogy and family tree gathering was so that they could baptize and save us all rather than flog our info? I may be totally wrong on this.

thats familysearch

@DaisyNGO

I think the US/UK law was the source of my puzzlement. Thanks.

In the US, is it possible that those who have used such websites could get a call saying "your uncle was a murderer"?

From reading about the Golden State killer you wouldn't be the first point of contact! Iirc the police employed a dna genealogist to create possible family trees to narrow down suspects. When they got to the killer they managed to get a dna sample as a final check before they arrested him.

Grim - I was just wondering if they'd tell you because this stuff ends uo in the press, who then do their own nosey stuff.

@DaisyNGO

Grim - I was just wondering if they'd tell you because this stuff ends uo in the press, who then do their own nosey stuff.

From my own research, which was identifying the parent of a child born in 1912 the press wouldn't be able to spend the time. It took me months! And I had a lot of help from other genealogists!

Just remembered that I'm in touch with a woman in the USA whose gggrandmother was adopted. Our dna connects and I have been able to share that her ancestry is from England and very likely has a particular surname.
Now, if I can pinpoint the ancestor who emigrated from my tree to the USA, this woman may be able to solver her family mystery!

DH is adopted. He took an Ancestry DNA test out of curiosity but doesn’t want to make the first move contacting anyone. We have almost certainly found his biological parents, both from large catholic families and were very young when he was born.
A second cousin was the first good match, but their name was difficult to eliminate. Over time more matches have appeared. He has found one uncle (almost certainly an uncle and not any other potential combination based on shared DNA and age), 5 first cousins which match the uncle and only two of them seem to relate to each other with their trees. They are all spread out over North America. Possibly a sperm donor situation? These cousins are all 40s now. 15 second cousins; which match on both sides, and loads and loads third cousins.
None of them have contacted him.
We have managed to make some family trees based on their public trees which has narrowed down potential parents. One is deceased the other is not.
DH is curious but not overly so, he is very secure in who he is so won’t make the first move. Not one of the others have contacted him and we still have some mystery.

I am an only child , my mother had 2 siblings , only one of them had children ( 2) My father had a rather disfunctional family to the degree he never really knew how many siblings he had as he was a late baby and had brothers / sisters who had left home whilst he was very young , never to return, and they were never mentioned again . I took the test and have found a first cousin and was surprised to see I have many DNA matches which although are very distant ( 5 - 8th cousins ) so obviously we share scant dna , it still amounts to 15,000 DNA matches ( not unusual ) but that kind of blows my mind.

I have found buying birth, marriage and death certs useful too and the 1939 census (and 1911 and earlier ones) which can help confirm other data to verify things too not that the census is always correct nor is information on official certs always 100% right.

Xenia

Mosty wrong in my judgement.
Marriages and deaths are usually accurate, but parenthood should always be taken with a large pinch of salt.
On all sides of my family, my OH's family we know of many realtives, distant and close that have certificates with "innacuaracies" on their birth

I've just received my Ancestry DNA result and am very happy with the result. I've been researching my family tree for over 20 years and it confirmed my research almost perfectly. No surprises at all, but I would have been open to a shock or too. On the negative side it was pretty boring, but on the positive side I probably haven't wasted all those years researching the wrong branch.

At least DNA doesn't lie. I'm heartily pissed off with just about every tree on Ancestry having glaring inaccuracies. Yesterday found a person from the 1800's with a baptism in 1627. 😡

Given the state of global politics I think telling people they have "French" or "English" DNA is a dangerous slippery slope.

@KeflavikAirport

Given the state of global politics I think telling people they have "French" or "English" DNA is a dangerous slippery slope.

But most people are a mixture. I don't think anyone is going to have English DNA. I know mine is totally European, but that isn't going to turn me into a xenophobe.

i also don't know how I would feel if I was someone who had donated eggs/sperm in the 80s or 90s and had been promised complete anonymity forever.

There's a law in France that you can give birth in complete anonymity with no way for the child to trace you. It was used by thousands and thousands of women in the seventies when abortion was difficult to impossible. There will be lots of cases of rape and incest. I agree that those women deserve to preserve their anonymity. Thankfully French law is pretty tight on this.

@knittingaddict but it's not a huge leap of the imagination for some populist strongman along the Trump / Bolsonaro / Orban lines to make a thing of it. There's a presidential candidate in France now banging on about what immigrants should be allowed to call their babies, imagine if someone like that could enforce testing for "English" DNA.

Most people within marriage don't cheat so I am pretty sure most UK birth certs are not full of lies and I would not treat most of them with a pinch of salt. However people are right that if the wrong father were put down the certificate will not tell you that. DNA will. I was only say both are useful if you are tracking back family in fairly simple families like ours where on the whole back to the 1700s people have married had children and nor remarried unless the first spouse died even unto today when one of my children had a child within marriage rather than whilst in an unmarried relationship.