On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 11:08:51 PM UTC+2, taf wrote: > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 12:06:22 PM UTC-7, gets...@gmail.com > > funds just limited? > > I suspect that the answer is much more mundane. These are scientists doing genetic anthropology, not genealogists going genealogy. The 23 marker test is standard 'first-pass' analysis for anthropological samples, as indicated by the fact that the biotech company Promega markets a 23-marker kit. Likewise, the test accomplished what they needed it to - their goal was not to identify modern kin of the Plangtagenets, as a genealogist might set out to do. Their goal was to see whether Richard's matched the Beaufort/Somerset type. The 23-marker test was fully sufficient to allow an unambiguous conclusion that negated a Y-chromosome match. > > This is standard scientific process - come up with a hypothesis, ask a discreet question, preferably one that produces a yes-or-no answer, and perform a test that answers that question to see it it confirms the hypothesis. The alternative, what a genealogist would do, determine a detailed haplotype and then, vaguely, 'see if you can find anyone anywhere that matches it - to cast a wide net and see what you catch, is disparaged in science as a so-called fishing expedition (a term misused earlier in this thread), and is unfundable. They had a definitive, publishable result, and so they published it. > > The next question is whether they will pursue it further. Bearing in mind that their audience is one of scientists and not genealogists, they may well conclude that the take isn't worth the chase. No funding agency would fund such an investigation, since in addition to being a fishing expedition, there is a distinct possibility they would fail to find any matches, meaning the money would be wasted. Even if they did, such a result may be unpublishable - > if they were to find someone named Smith who matches Richard's Y, what do you say about it that would appeal to a scientific journal? That is why they told of the Patrice de Warren result in an interview with The Guardian, because they saw no prospects of the result ever being part of a scientific paper. > > If they got the money to sequence the genome, then they may spin off a little bit of money to do a more detailed Y-typing, but if they didn't get the money, they are likely to turn their sights to a different question entirely - they intend to investigate Jack the Ripper's victims. This is actually a hopeful sign, as there is no purely scientific or historic reason for doing this. There is no question of the identity of the skeletons, and nothing that makes their genetics 'special'. They are clearly chasing headlines, so they may be more willing to do experiments that have poor justification on a purely scientific basis, if they think it will get them in the papers, and 'is Bob Smith from Ipswich the true heir of the Plantagenets?' just might do the trick. > I'm not sure funds would be a problem for Y DNA testing. I would guess this is more of a problem of being outside their specialty? In reality the biggest question would be judging people's paper trails, and recruiting the best ones. Possibly they were even hoping the amateur community would just do the work once they published what they had for Richard? By the way it is possible to write to Turi King and ask what their ideas are. The team at Leicester have been open to discussion with amateur genealogists over the years.

On 9/1/2017 2:11 AM, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > I'm not sure funds would be a problem for Y DNA testing. I would guess > this is more of a problem of being outside their specialty? In reality > the biggest question would be judging people's paper trails, and > recruiting the best ones. Possibly they were even hoping the amateur > community would just do the work once they published what they had for > Richard? In my experience in the current academic world, funding almost always difficult when there is no "real world application" (translation: large financial return).  Lack of expertise in genealogy is also a serious problem.  Many of these researchers are not only poor judges of genealogical research, but they often seem unaware that this is even an issue. Stewart Baldwin