Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Standard SMR-2395. Does FamilyTreeDNA comply?

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

  • New Standard SMR-2395. Does FamilyTreeDNA comply?

    I could not find anything about this new standard on the FamilyTreeDNA site. I wonder if they comply with the new requirements?

    "The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the leading standards organization in the United States, is now proposing that all companies offering genetic genealogy tests use a new standard called SRM-2395.
    Any genealogist thinking of getting a genetic genealogy test in 2009 should certainly ask the testing company if their test meets or exceeds the new SRM-2395 genetic genealogy test standard."

  • #2
    If you Google around you'll find mention of discussions between FTDNA and NIST on this topic going back some years.

    I think it's a safe bet that, as a big hitter in the industry, FTDNA is compliant.

    Comment


    • #3
      NIST stanards

      In the book, DNA & Social Networking, published in 2011 it says, "FTDNA has not upgraded its database to the new NIST standards". I wonder when this will happen?

      Comment


      • #4
        Yeah, I was surprised to learn that FTDNA is not NIST compliant. They have been dragging their feet for quite some time now.

        I'm told that some of the older components of their IT system are undocumented, so perhaps that's a hurdle.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm sure IT is part of the delay, but there are other considerations at play. There's also the matter of changing the haplotypes of all their existing customers; not many of them nearly as informed as the readers of this forum. Have you read older posts here and elsewhere, of how many people got confused when R1b1b2 became R1b1a2?

          They've also talked about changing their haplotype reporting to show microallele values, e.g. a marker that now shows 15 may actually be 14.3 for a 4-bp STR (it repeats 14 times, plus three of the four repeating bases).

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by nathanm View Post
            I'm sure IT is part of the delay, but there are other considerations at play. There's also the matter of changing the haplotypes of all their existing customers; not many of them nearly as informed as the readers of this forum. Have you read older posts here and elsewhere, of how many people got confused when R1b1b2 became R1b1a2?

            They've also talked about changing their haplotype reporting to show microallele values, e.g. a marker that now shows 15 may actually be 14.3 for a 4-bp STR (it repeats 14 times, plus three of the four repeating bases).
            Yep, there's certainly some work to be done, but it doesn't get done by putting it off.

            In this field there will be constant change so customers will have to learn to live with it. Clear communication from FTDNA will be a major part of the solution, and clear communication has not been their strong suit, although IMO the recent major change to myFTDNA Pages was done very well -- so there's some hope.

            Comment

            Working...
            X