It has been a number of weeks since we first got a glimpse of the SNPs below M222 as provided by Jim Wilson through his diagram. Since then quite a few on this list have ordered Cromo2. Has there been any further updated information from ScotlandsDNA on further results? Thanks

Dear Brian, I think we are all waiting for the testing process. For the groups who discuss these things with me, beyond confirmations of their orders, etc. as far as I know there has been no further news on that front. If any have contacted BISDNA for further clarifications on the private labeled SNPs, it has not been mentioned beyond what Sandy has posted. On that front, the private labeling of previously known SNPs is an issue I believe that at least the GG community among others should address with BISDNA; that said, they may not be the only DTC company that participates in this type of IMO description of consumer deception; but they are well known for it. There has been some worry that previously considered more transparent operating companies such as FTDNA may resort to the practice as well due to competition pressure. Understandably, the nature of DTC competitiveness in light of the fact that certain companies will private label SNPs regardless without sharing details is a possible justification for entering into the same form of behavior; however, I do hope that they do not and continue with at least the known transparency we perceive is there; many have advocated directly that they do continue with transparency. I would think that the ISOGG could be helpful in this regard by insisting that those companies that continue to private label SNPs provide full disclosure previous to having their private label SNPs listed on the phylogenetic tree. Although there are evidences of the "crossover" labels on the tree, there has been a lag from those most notorious in private labeling to provide these disclosures to the public and their customers as well. The complications which arise from the private labeling of previously known SNPs for the DTC consumer is that it is nearly impossible to know what SNPs are being tested by the competing companies, that is we may know from their private labels only without knowing whether or not the same snps are in packages of other companies; hence product research prior to purchase is greatly diminished. These companies should not be treating SNPs the same as mattresses. Anyone try to compare mattresses? which are among the most notorious areas of this private labeling scheme. Furthermore in terms of our pursuits in genetic genealogy, the matter is confusing at least when testing with more than one company in these investigations. Such is the case for those who have primarily tested their Y with FTDNA to move onto investigations with BIS because it appears their package includes SNPs which may not be offered by FTDNA. But do we know that with any certainty? It has been represented as such, but IMO I do not believe that we actually know. What we know with some certainty is that the 1 private labeled SNP S675 is in fact what we know by the real name df85. There very well could be others, but they have not revealed whether there are or are not. We have the representations made by Sandy, and I assume that Sandy got that from BIS yet I was still unclear after reading the wording of the post. While this sort of private labeling occurs in nearly every industry in regard to manufactured products, genetic material technically would not fall under that scheme; and why this private labeling of SNPs has been tolerated by the more knowledgeable consumer base, the bloggers, journals and the scientific community at large IMO is a matter of confused ethical standards if nothing else. In view of the recent rulings regarding the patenting of the BRCA gene and extrapolations thereof, it could be argued that this private labeling could be considered an extension of the issue regarding this patenting effort, and that a stop to it is in order. Susan Hedeen On 11/7/2013 3:00 PM, Brian Callahan wrote: > > > It has been a number of weeks since we first got a glimpse of the SNPs below M222 as provided by Jim Wilson through his diagram. Since then quite a few on this list have ordered Cromo2. Has there been any further updated information from ScotlandsDNA on further results? Thanks > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >