Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thomas Krahn has left FTDNA

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

  • Thomas Krahn has left FTDNA

    Per a thread at rootsweb DNA, Thomas Krahn has left FTDNA.
    http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-08/1377935077

    Thomas Krahn was the Chief Y chromosome scientist and a Member of FTDNA's Scientific Advisory Board. He is the inventor of the Walk Through the Y project and maintains the Ymap and Ytree databases that FTDNA provides at no cost to the scientific community.

    Note: the Ymap tree database is now kaput!

    This does not bode well for the Geno 2.0 y-DNA tree.

  • #2
    I wonder what that means for the future of FTDNA's lab and involvement in Y research, or I wonder why Krahn has parted company with FTDNA?

    Comment


    • #3
      Maybe FTDNA doesn't want to muck around with $39 single SNP tests anymore?

      Being on the scientific "cutting edge" might be less important to FTDNA than profit margin.

      Perhaps they only want to process Geno 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 etc. for $199?

      BTW, the promised Geno 2.0 y-DNA tree has not materialized.
      It is blamed on a "paper" that is waiting to be published. (but never is)

      What use is a terminal SNP if you don't know how it connects with the rest of the tree?

      Really Disappointing News FTDNA!!!
      You should have sacked the IT department instead!

      More on the Krahn's departure:
      http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-09/1378169929

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ajmr1a1 View Post
        ...

        BTW, the promised Geno 2.0 y-DNA tree has not materialized.
        It is blamed on a "paper" that is waiting to be published. (but never is)

        ...
        Publishing a scientific paper in a refereed journal is not like publishing an article on the Kardashians in People. Such a paper can take a year or more between submission and appearance in print. No reputable scientist is going to rush to submit a paper until sufficient data have been collected and analyzed. A paper like this has ambitions higher than simply presenting a catalog of new data. I would be surprised at this stage that the paper has even been submitted. It is way too early to expect it to appear in print.

        Comment


        • #5
          I am not demanding a published paper before it's ready for release.
          It may take years before a finalized paper is published.

          However, keeping us totally in the dark in the interim is not right either.
          "Sorry, we can't tell you much of anything because the paper is not ready.
          But thanks for the DNA sample and thanks for the money."

          Thomas Krahn published a "draft" y-DNA tree which was based on Geno 2.0 data and other sources. (Ymap, which has now vanished from the web) Kudos to Thomas!!
          It was not NatGeo or FTDNA that provided this information.

          We already know much more about the y-DNA tree because of "citizen scientists" like Bonnie Schrack.

          MFWARE, I am curious to know what role you think that "citizen scientists" like Bonnie should play in the Genographic Project and other similar projects.

          Also, what are your feelings about Thomas Krahn releasing a tentative y-DNA draft tree? (in advance of a published scientific peer-reviewed paper)
          Last edited by ajmr1a1; 4th September 2013, 03:53 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            What is the harm publishing a "draft tree" such as this one of R1a-M417?

            http://eng.molgen.org/download/file....=448&mode=view
            Last edited by ajmr1a1; 4th September 2013, 03:53 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by tomcat View Post
              I wonder what that means for the future of FTDNA's lab and involvement in Y research, or I wonder why Krahn has parted company with FTDNA?
              I think people are confused about the job functions Thomas Krahn performed.

              Please see what he wrote several months ago to the genealogy-DNA list.
              http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-04/1367257445
              He said then that SNPs tests were not part of *his* job.

              The recent delays are more likely a high lab volume issue. That seems to be the bane of our existence. Hmmm?

              Best,
              Rebekah

              Comment


              • #8
                From FTDNA's Facebook page:

                "Some have expressed concern about Family Tree DNA staffing. Notably, people have heard that Thomas and Astrid Krahn are no longer employed at Family Tree DNA. Family Tree DNA has high regard for Thomas and Astrid, for their contributions to our company, and the genetic genealogy community. Management had a good conversation with Thomas before he left for his vacation, and all agreed that upon his return, they would discuss the possibility of an alternate working relationship. Out of our respect for them, more than that needs to wait for a joint statement we would like to make with the Krahns.

                Nothing changes in day-to-day operations. Family Tree DNA is dedicated to our customers, and none of the routine lab tests have been in any way impacted by staffing changes. Where there are lab delays, they are due to unfortunate but ordinary lab processes. We are and will remain the company of choice for genealogists. Our Genomic Research Center in Houston, Texas will continue with everything that it has been doing and more.
                "

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ajmr1a1 View Post
                  You should have sacked the IT department instead!
                  By purchasing Arpeggi they've done the next best thing to what you suggest.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thomas Krahn recently posted to the Rootsweb Genealogy-DNA list that his leaving was not voluntary. He was dismissed by FTDNA's new Chief Science Officer.

                    I take that as another sign FTDNA is conceding leadership in Y testing. The first sign was dropping Deep Clade in favor of Geno 2.0, indicating we would have to wait for Geno 3.0 to make any additional progress on Y SNP's.

                    In fact, FTDNA's position at the forefront of Y testing has been superceded by the 1000 Genomes Project and, on a retail level, by Full Genomes - FTDNA can sit back and let those initiatives do the exploration and harvest the relevant data for Geno 3.0.

                    I can only imagine two moves from here; either FTDNA launches a whole Y test, or empowers Y Project admins to handle whole Y data. The first is unlikely given FTDNA's non-compete agreement with The Geno, and the second would place a demand on FTDNA IT that they seem incapable of handling.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Spencer Wells just told me on twitter that Geno hopes to publish a new SNP tree soon.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Donald Locke View Post
                        Spencer Wells just told me on twitter that Geno hopes to publish a new SNP tree soon.
                        Did he give any estimate of what "soon" means? One month? Six months? By "publish," does he mean submit an already written article to a journal or that a journal will actually publish his already submitted article?

                        If not, please ask those follow-up questions. Or, anyone who's on the twitter feed and interested in the answers to these questions, please ask them.
                        Last edited by MMaddi; 13th September 2013, 02:19 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          @ajmr1a1: #NatGeoLive
                          Hi Spencer!
                          When can we expect to see an update on the y-DNA phylotree from the Geno 2.0 results?

                          @spwells: [email protected] We're in the process of updating it - so many new SNPs on the chip that every set of samples yields new branches. #NatGeoLive

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The Twitter chat was all very vague. No juicy information, unfortunately.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It is really unfortunate that the "citizen scientists" are thus far being kept in the dark about Geno 2.0 results.

                              Some of the SNPs on the Geno 2.0 chip came from FTDNA customer funded WTY and single SNP tests developed by Thomas Krahn.

                              Now that FTDNA has kicked Thomas Krahn to the curb, killed WTY and slowed-down the single SNP testing to a crawl, the citizen scientists are effectively shut out from actively participating in discovery.

                              How many of you find this acceptable?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X