Beth states: <You are quite absolutely correct. Geneticists do study the identifiable characteristics of genes. However, well before geneticists came to be, hematologists provided the same sort of information. For example, in the 1970s I had a hematologist explain the sources of my blood group and its genotype. While DNA examination has grown by leaps and bounds, the story for me remains essentially the same. My request is that I want to know the credentials of persons supplying the information.> Beth, You are right in asking for credentials, but there are many aspects of science that are rather commonplace because of the media. Every genetic "breakthrough" is highly publicized, so that one would have to be a hermit not to know something of the science of DNA. The basic concepts are not that hard. And, it is true that the intricacies of blood type go well beyond the TYPE. I understand that even though one says they are type O, A, B, etc., there's a "long line" of definition behind that letter designation, which involve science that is not for the faint of heart. I'm not a scientist, but never miss the show Forensic Files, and I'm also remebering some things from Biology, and what a nurse-friend of mine told me. Forensic Files is a TV show that demonstrates the solving of real crimes by real police and real scientists. My cousin has also had his Y-DNA tested to determine from where we came in Ireland, and I have been the one to read through and explain his results in layman's terms. (Note, my previous post.) Not all of the science of DNA is beyond the scope of a person motivated to understand it. There is no statement that Michael makes that is incorrect, and you may verify his knowledge through many web sites, especially the Family Tree DNA site that he suggested. Blood used to be the "gold standard" in forensics, but it has been replaced by DNA. I believe, if memory serves me, DNA carries the instructions for the blood type. I also remember a day when paternity was proven through blood type, yet still was subject to dispute! Now DNA proves paternity to 99.9% accuracy! Because one level of science replaces another in certain things, doesn't mean the other is wrong, or is of no use. A doctor would be way out of bounds requesting a DNA test, when something can be shown through blood work. It would be like using a chain saw to trim a 1 foot bush! On a purely personal level, it doesn't matter to a person who has a disease, where the disease entered the genetic line...that doesn't currently affect treatment...nor does it give the person with the disease any comfort knowing that a mutation occurred 100 years, or 1 million years ago! And none of this DNA info is meant to discount the blood disorder being discussed, which was correctly diagnosed through hematology. To me as a layperson, it doesn't matter which came first, blood tests or DNA research, but how they work together! Another fascinating aspect of all the DNA/genome studies is the revelation that chimpanzees and humans share 98% of their genetic makeups. I began reading up on this, but the discussion goes into "protein and enzyme reactions" and that is where I'm over my head. This fascinating study is easily found by searching "human and chimp genome studies" on the Net, if anyone is interested in the research. Patricia