Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Smgf

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jim Barrett
    replied
    Originally posted by freckles View Post
    And I have no problem with profit, as long as we the consumer/ participants receive fair warning before taking part.

    By the by... why oh why does it take a year or two for results to be analyzed and posted? I know that as a non-profit, SGMF has to keep costs low and I can accept that, but do they seriously test a huge batch of little mouthwash cups just once/ year?
    Take this as your fair warning and then you won't need to worry about it any more.

    Did you know that SMGF does something other than wait for us to send them samples to test for free? I guess if you don't want to wait you could buy a kit from one of the "for profit" companies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    At some point, do you think that the whole Sorenson database will become pay-to-view or something like that? The article about the group's founder ends with him saying that he's doing this for fun and as a not-for-profit... but then grinning and saying that "the money will follow" or something like that. It just seems as though the goal of this entire project is essentially for profit. And I have no problem with profit, as long as we the consumer/ participants receive fair warning before taking part.

    By the by... why oh why does it take a year or two for results to be analyzed and posted? I know that as a non-profit, SGMF has to keep costs low and I can accept that, but do they seriously test a huge batch of little mouthwash cups just once/ year?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Barrett
    replied
    I'm sure you know by now that their site is back up.

    Leave a comment:


  • vinnie
    replied
    Is anyone else having problems connecting to smgf? I've tried IE & Firefox...

    Leave a comment:


  • marvallen
    replied
    I guess one gets the service they "pay" for....

    Leave a comment:


  • FredSpringer
    replied
    Still Waiting

    I had my DNA tested in 2002. My y-DNA results have been posted for a while, but still no mtDNA. I was hoping that the latest update to their database would include my mtDNA data, but no such luck. Doesn't six years seem like a bit long to wait for results?

    Leave a comment:


  • rucksack
    replied
    SMGF Sorenson database recent update

    Sorenson mtDNA and Y-chromosome databases have recently been updated.

    http://www.smgf.org

    Check it out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    Smgf

    Originally posted by DMac
    Unfortunately, with people who barely know what's they're doing or agreeing to, I think what SMGF has apparently put in place is in their, SMGF's, best interest. Specific agreement to be contacted would be in hand.

    Don't get me wrong. I'd love to be able to easily contact some people but I also understand SMGF's issues with the rules.
    I guess it is to SMGF's advantage. Hopefully some people get their results off their web and post in Ysearch and Mitosearch!

    Leave a comment:


  • DMac
    replied
    Originally posted by Yaffa
    I think they should give participants the option of signing a hold harmless agreement. Some people may want to be contacted by email directly. Ysearch and mitosearch work this way without publicly posting someones email addy. For the others they have the option of going through a 3rd party. I think it should be up to the participant
    Unfortunately, with people who barely know what's they're doing or agreeing to, I think what SMGF has apparently put in place is in their, SMGF's, best interest. Specific agreement to be contacted would be in hand.

    Don't get me wrong. I'd love to be able to easily contact some people but I also understand SMGF's issues with the rules.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    Smgf

    Originally posted by DMac
    Appears SMGF has come up with what is really the only solution possible. As a participant, unless I agreed to any contact, my contact information would remain private. Brokered contact would fall in the realm of informed consent of which I'm sure they'd keep a record.
    I think they should give participants the option of signing a hold harmless agreement. Some people may want to be contacted by email directly. Ysearch and mitosearch work this way without publicly posting someones email addy. For the others they have the option of going through a 3rd party. I think it should be up to the participant

    Leave a comment:


  • DMac
    replied
    Originally posted by Yaffa
    I have an application for SMGF

    Participant Contact Quote

    Users of the online database may desire to contact you ( the participant ) to ask questions or share information. Contact between database users and project participants is completly voluntary and is brokered by SMGF or a third party,such as an email message sent through the SMGF website. None of your personal or contact information will be shared with database users.
    Appears SMGF has come up with what is really the only solution possible. As a participant, unless I agreed to any contact, my contact information would remain private. Brokered contact would fall in the realm of informed consent of which I'm sure they'd keep a record.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaffa
    replied
    SMGF contacting participants

    Originally posted by DMac
    Sorenson can't improve due to circumstances beyond their control. As a "Research" organization, Sorenson is bound by strict rules that govern research in the U.S. meant to protect the privacy of participants. These rules cover all studies in the heath and DNA fields. If you've got a problem with the rules, contact your representatives in government.
    I have an application for SMGF

    Participant Contact Quote

    Users of the online database may desire to contact you ( the participant ) to ask questions or share information. Contact between database users and project participants is completly voluntary and is brokered by SMGF or a third party,such as an email message sent through the SMGF website. None of your personal or contact information will be shared with database users.

    Leave a comment:


  • DMac
    replied
    Originally posted by FredSpringer
    Where Sorenson could improve is allowing participants to contact one another. There is no method for contacting someone you match in their database. There has been talk of this changing, but I don't expect it anytime soon. As has been discussed, things seem to take a long time at Sorenson.
    Sorenson can't improve due to circumstances beyond their control. As a "Research" organization, Sorenson is bound by strict rules that govern research in the U.S. meant to protect the privacy of participants. These rules cover all studies in the heath and DNA fields. If you've got a problem with the rules, contact your representatives in government.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sonia
    replied
    Thanks!

    Originally posted by Ann Turner
    Huh! That just goes to show you can't assume the law of averages applies I was mentally thinking of an average of 30 years per generation.

    I just noticed there's a typo in your sig line when checking your mutations in the current SMGF database (no matches yet) -- the last mtDNA mutation should read 16527T, I suspect.
    Hi Ann,

    Thanks for letting me know about the typo & checking for matches. Many of the women in the early generations seemed to have children forever - starting before the age of 18 and going into their 40s. My Dad was a big time oops with his Mom being 47!

    Does SMGF have a public atDNA database available to check yet?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ann Turner
    replied
    Originally posted by Sonia
    From my known biological ancestry and family history (non-biological paters), it doesn't take a lot for me to get back to the antebellum period:
    Me - b. 1961
    Parents - b. 1918 & 1924
    Grandparents - b. 1871, 1874, 1899, & 1905
    Great-grandparents - b. 1838, 1838, 1840, 1849, 1858, 1860, 1862, and 1866.
    Huh! That just goes to show you can't assume the law of averages applies I was mentally thinking of an average of 30 years per generation.

    I just noticed there's a typo in your sig line when checking your mutations in the current SMGF database (no matches yet) -- the last mtDNA mutation should read 16527T, I suspect.

    Ann

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X