You Don't Know What You Don't Know

DNA testing.  It's the current buzz term in the genealogy world right now.  For good and for bad.  So let's discuss it today, shall we?  Why not, everyone else is!  Today's post is spurred on by a pretty vigorous online discussion that is happening at the moment and I think there are some important points that aren't getting enough attention in the process.

The original story, that you can see in original form here and is also referenced here by Dick Eastman, is of a biologist who, after teaching a college course on the genome, thought it might be fun/informative/interesting/helpful to take a DNA test in order to discover his susceptibility to certain familial cancers.  The fun part, he thought, came in by buying tests for his parents too.  Because honestly, if you are him, why not?  In his defense and in complete sympathy for him, what else could he possibly expect the outcome of a saliva swab to be?  Apparently a bouncing baby boy was not on his list of standard deviations.  Obviously.  So this poor man and his family were thrust into the gaping jaws of a personal family soap opera all because of an opt-in button for finding close relatives.  It's ended quite tragically for his family, and I recognize that in every possible way, but I don't think that this story, or the very many others like it, should cause us to dismiss DNA testing out of hand, without really examining the root of the conflict the "insta-family" button is creating for some folks.

First and foremost, the scripture that keeps coming to mind when I hear this story and so many like it, is actually found in the New Testament in Luke 12:3.  It says: "Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops."  The takeaway from that?  We can't hide what we've done.  Eventually everything comes to light.  And now, with these DNA tests, which George Doe (above) discovered and points out, we are dealing with highly advanced paternity tests.  Now, George's story, as tragic as it is, is also very vague on certain details.  How old was the half-brother and did his age indicate that he was born before or after the creation of the author's family?  Did George's father even know (chances are no because the author seems to indicate his dad was just as shocked as he was at the discovery) that this lost child even existed.  There are so many variables to this story that we just don't know.  His father even thought that the test he had taken was defective -- a very common reaction many people are having when unexpected results come back.  And at first, my reaction was that he had to have had some idea that there was a possibility of it when he sent off his cheek swab but now... maybe not so much.  We just don't know how everything went down.  Or when it went down.  So to say that DNA tests are bad or that the "opt-in" button on the results is bad is pretty extreme.  I am a believer in owning our actions.  One hundred percent, all the time, every day.  You do it, own it.  Especially when it comes to light, as Luke has so clearly told us it will, own it.  So to blame the opt-in button is a bitter pill for me to swallow.  I agree with George that it is easy for people to not understand the ramification of clicking that button but part of me still thinks that you've got to go in with eyes wide open knowing that maybe something might come back that you aren't expecting.

There are two sides to this coin though.  The other side of the narrative is referenced beautifully by Kerry Scott in her blog post here.  I seriously wanted to give her a virtual high-five after reading this.  Discovering unknown half-siblings, or that your parents (one or both) aren't your parents, while stunning and possibly devastating, may not be something that needs to be judged as harshly as some people are wont to do.  It may not be what we think it is.  This is especially in the case of long ago generations where life and social expectations were so very different from today.  I loved her comment about a "statute of limitations" for our family judgement.  Good food for thought, isn't it?  People did the best they could do with the knowledge they had and the environment in which they lived.  Sometimes what looks like a shocker family revelation may have been a sincere horror for a woman in our family line.  So that's something to chew on as well.

DNA testing has huge benefits.  It just recently positively identified the remains of Richard III in England, as well as positively identifying Jack the Ripper.  It has gotten innocent people off of death row and it has helped find matches for all sorts of medical miracles.  So, I guess my opinion on DNA testing is we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water (go ahead and insert your tongue firmly into your cheek as you read that too).  Like I say all the time, every family has some scoundrels and some heroes.  Even the scoundrels have heroic qualities and vice versa for our heroes.  The beauty of family history is coming to know who you are and dealing with the good and the bad and healing from all of it.  Things come to light, even things we think we can hide.  Eventually, everyone will know everything.  And maybe that creates some uncomfortable (and even presently damaging) situations for some people. But for now, we don't know what we don't know until we know it.  And to blame all of that on some test is a bit on the extreme side.  Those things existed before the tests are ever taken.  And even then, whose to say we'll really know even then.  But my big takeaway is this, when we research our family history (via records or DNA) we're going to find stuff we may not want.  It may seem like the world is ending in that moment, but eventually, it could be the most healing thing in someone's life.  So I tend to feel, overall, that we should all walk into this with the clear expectation that discovering the unexpected is not a bad thing.  It's an opportunity.

Safety Rule #3 for the Genealogy Internet Playground

Safety rule #3 for the internet genealogy playground: Don’t throw sand in other people’s eyes.

Remember, remember, remember that you aren’t just talking to a computer screen, or even a database, you are talking to people. And you are talking to people about one of the most emotional topics around—their roots. Often you are even talking to people about family members that they knew and loved.

In some cases we can’t ever come to a knowledge of exactly what happened in a historical situation because we weren’t there. The best we can do is collect quality sources and learn how to interpret them the best we can. Sometimes that leaves a lot of disparity between opinions. Care must be taken to be diplomatic in all cases. Especially in dealing with people you don’t know very well.

Sometimes a discussion in a collaborative environment results not so much in the person with the most knowledge coming out victor, but the person with the most time to devote to the cause. Just double check yourself before you hit the enter key. Would you say that to a person in real life?

Play nicely and be safe on the internet playground. The internet is a fantastic boon to family history researchers. It creates an exciting gathering place where we can find distant cousins and fast friends to help us research our family tree. And remember, as any internet genealogist will tell you—Share, Share, Share is the name of the game. If you cast your bread upon the waters it may come back to you an hundred fold. It’s never too late to play by the rules and have fun. Be sure to follow these three basic safety rules and you’ll have a great time.

Safety Rule #2 for the Genealogy Internet Playground

Safety rule #2 for the internet genealogy playground: Share your pail and shovel.

Ok. So you know not to pick up half-licked suckers on the playground and not to go home with anyone you don’t know. But to play fair on the internet genealogy playground, you need to make sure that you are a good playmate yourself. In order to do that, you’ll need to provide the sources for what you have researched.

You might say, “Why bother?”
• “It’s just a hobby. It doesn’t matter where I got it.”
• “I’m never going to publish a book or anything.”
• “The fun is in the searching”
• “I’m too busy. As long as I know it’s right that’s enough.”

To which one might answer:
• “As you work your way up, are you ever going to find a cousin genealogist?”
• “Do you want them to share what they have learned?”
• “Are you ever going to participate in a collaborative database?”
• “Do you want your children and grandchildren to be able to build on your work or do you want them to have to recheck it?”

Now I’m not naive. Typing in all the particulars about where you found some information is not the fun part. But, if we are going to play together on the internet genealogy playground, we are not going to get anywhere in a collaborative environment if we don’t cite our sources. If we submit data to any genealogy database without the source information, we are only contributing to conjecture—not building anything for future generations to work with. Our children will have to start all over to verify what we have done.

Citing your sources doesn’t have to be a perfect science. Record enough information so that another researcher can follow your path and not have to redo your research. And, by the way, anything can be a source—even if it is your mother’s memory or a silver tea set with a wedding date engraved on the back. However, only cite sources you have personally seen. If your cousin tells you about a census record, your cousin is the source, not the census record. If Great-Grandmother said something that was written in your aunt’s journal which was then copied into your cousin’s book which your dad emailed you about, your dad’s email is the only source you can cite. Remember, though, that a good researcher will go back to their cousin’s book, their aunt’s journal and will talk to Great-Grandmother, if possible, to get as close as they can to the original source.

It is also important to record any analysis surrounding the source. Record why you think this is a good or bad source and why you came to that conclusion. Perhaps you know that the family bible passed through the hands of an aunt who didn’t want any illegitimate births in the family recorded as such. Or maybe Grandfather lied about his age to get into the military. Elizabeth Shown Mills writes, “Once we refer researchers to a specific source, we are obligated to alert or caution them, as they may be less experienced with the materials“ (Mills, Elizabeth Shown, “Citing Your Sources,” OnBoard 1 (September 1995): 24). Even recording other researcher’s false information, and noting why, will be helpful to future researchers. Usually this kind of analysis is recorded in the notes section.

Originally published in the Generation Maps Newsletter

Safety Rule #1 for the Genealogy Internet Playground

Safety Rule #1 for the Genealogy Internet Playground
Don't pick up half-eaten suckers.

Many people who would never break the sucker rule in regular life, don't think twice about breaking a similar rule in genealogy. Some people who would never think of picking up a half-eaten sucker on a playground will take half-researched genealogy information from the internet-not knowing where it has been-and save it as gospel truth in their family history.

It used to be that when you wrote a letter to a cousin to ask about your family's history, your cousin would send you actual sources-a copy of the birth certificate, a page from the family bible, or whatever they had that would satisfy your quest. Now, when you contact a cousin about their genealogy, you often receive a computer file (such as a GEDCOM) which contains information about your family, but the file has no footnotes or citations about the sources that were used to compile the data.

Quite often, on the internet genealogy playground, the situation can be even stickier. In collaboration databases such as Ancestry's One World Tree, or new.familysearch.org, information comes from many
different people-some who cite their sources and some who don't. If you are lucky, you may be able to contact the person who submitted the information, but sometimes it is impossible to figure out where it
came from.

A researcher can get stuck when they find information on the internet that conflicts with information from sources they already have. When you come to a conflict, the only way to resolve it is by comparing sources. Comparing where both sets of information came from will allow you to resolve any differences. If there are no source citations, or the information came "from the internet somewhere," the researcher cannot determine which information is correct.

For example, if I have an immigration certificate and a church baptism record stating that my great- grandmother's birthday was June 14, 1897, and my second cousin has put information in FamilySearch stating that the birthday was July 18th 1897, there is only one way we can figure out which date is right. We will need to compare my immigration certificate and church baptism record to his sources-perhaps a copy of Grandmother's obituary. We will probably decide that the children who wrote the obituary were not as reliable a source concerning their mother's birth date as the priest who baptized her as a baby.

Likewise, I might have a great-grandfather who did lots of family history work in the early 1900s (which I do). What if now I have a cousin who thinks grandfather chose the wrong ancestor and then
continued to trace the wrong family line (which I do)? The only way we can figure out which ancestor is right is by comparing the sources my grandfather obtained to the source my cousin is looking at. My grandfather may have had access to documents that no longer exist. Or my cousin may have found records my grandfather never saw. Likewise, my great grandchildren will need to know what sources I build my research on-unless I want them to just start over as if I never did any research. If we want these collaborative databases to be of any use in the future, we have to make sure we are entering the sources we have used.

So, what do you do when you come across information about your family on the internet playground? Look at the notes and sources included with the information. Notes and sources tell you the quality of research that you are dealing with. When there are good source citations you can often just spot check the information and make sure that you can ascertain where the data came from. When there are poor source citations, you can use the data as a pointer to future research. (Like thinking "Hey there are suckers around this playground-I wonder where I can get one?") Well documented sources establish the credibility of the researcher, and well documented sources help in analyzing the research of another
person.

Coming soon, rules 2 and 3. If you subscribed to our newsletter, you would already know what rule 2 is . Subscribe now to find out what rule 3 is in a couple of weeks.