A member of a group I manage has asked if his son's kit (not yet validated for our project SNP) added into the fully tested sub-group that the father has (the father got his positive results 2 days ago).
He asked for this based on 'by association'. I would like to oblige but commonsense tells me this is unacceptable until his son's results state that he has the required test results. This might be a very touchy matter to some people.
My question is in a broader sense, how flexible we can, or should be, at doing something that in a purely scientific sense, is unproven.
I have seen one other group administrator place (his own nephew) into a tested category that the nephew had not been tested for with the comment 'by asociation'. I am not really at all happy about accepting 'by association' as proof someone has a particular result and is justifiably able to be added as an accepted statistic in that tested clade/category.
Any advice most welcome. Hopefully there is a policy statement that I can refer to.
Thanks
DSM
DF100-CTS4528 project
He asked for this based on 'by association'. I would like to oblige but commonsense tells me this is unacceptable until his son's results state that he has the required test results. This might be a very touchy matter to some people.
My question is in a broader sense, how flexible we can, or should be, at doing something that in a purely scientific sense, is unproven.
I have seen one other group administrator place (his own nephew) into a tested category that the nephew had not been tested for with the comment 'by asociation'. I am not really at all happy about accepting 'by association' as proof someone has a particular result and is justifiably able to be added as an accepted statistic in that tested clade/category.
Any advice most welcome. Hopefully there is a policy statement that I can refer to.
Thanks
DSM
DF100-CTS4528 project
Comment