Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thomas Krahn has left FTDNA

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

  • #16
    It is not acceptable to me!

    In the past year I did Geno 2.0, ordered a handful of a la carte $39 Y SNP's, and upgraded 67 to 111 STR's. As FTDNA offers me no additional SNP's to test, I have nothing more to do.

    My next Y test will be the whole Y through Full Genomes and I do not expect to post those results with FTDNA or any FTDNA project.

    In the near term I am testing three more siblings with 23andMe and I had anticipated transferring all seven sibling profiles to Family Finder. I will not do that absent a wholesale renovation and utterly astonishing improvement of FF - such as to convince me FTDNA is committed to being a leader in autosomal genetic genealogy.

    It seems clear to me, that with the sacking of Krahn, FTDNA has retreated from any Y discovery process and that their corporate focus has shifted to medical diagnostics and mass market, high volume testing such as future iterations of The Geno.
    Last edited by tomcat; 13th September 2013, 06:41 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by ajmr1a1 View Post
      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?
      Yes, it's a shame that the time scale at which professional science moves seems to be excruciatingly slow. Citizen scientists have the ISOGG tree and various trees for haplogroup projects that incorporate the latest discovered SNPs as quickly as possible. So, I understand why you're frustrated.

      How are citizen scientists and haplogroup project administrators able to add the newest SNPs to trees without Spencer Wells having published a new tree yet? Certainly not by complaining about the slow process of professional scientists - assembling data, ruminating over it, writing a study using the data, submitting it to a scientific journal, having it reviewed by peers, editing the article to conform to suggested changes by the peers and finally (!) having the article published. And by the time the article is published, the new knowledge is many times outdated by discovery of newer SNPs.

      I've posted this saying in another thread - "don't curse the darkness, light a candle." Citizen scientists "light a candle" by assembling the data from the results of haplogroup project members who've taken the Geno 2.0 and other of the latest tests and carefully placing the new SNPs on a tree by known phylogenetic principles.

      I've submitted my Geno 2.0 results to people involved in analyzing Geno 2.0 results for R1b-U106 Project members. Using my results and those of others, we've established placement of my terminal SNP, Z319, on the R1b-U106 tree.

      There are several people collecting Geno 2.0 results for representatives of various haplogroups and subclades. And now we're just starting to get results from the first full yDNA sequences. These results are also compared to results from the 1,000 Genomes Project, which is the source of the Z and DF SNPs.

      Have you submitted your Geno 2.0 raw data to the appropriate citizen science researcher to possibly find new SNPs or establish a more detailed phylogeny for your haplogroup/subclade? If not, please don't wait for Spencer Wells to publish a tree; help the cause of citizen science by putting your results to good use.
      Last edited by MMaddi; 13th September 2013, 07:05 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
        Have you submitted your Geno 2.0 raw data to the appropriate citizen science researcher to possibly find new SNPs or establish a more detailed phylogeny for your haplogroup/subclade? If not, please don't wait for Spencer Wells to publish a tree; help the cause of citizen science by putting your results to good use.
        @MMaddi

        I was one of the "pioneers" who participated in WTY at a considerably higher cost than a Geno 2.0 kit.
        The new SNP (L579) they discovered in my y-DNA is included on the Geno 2.0 chip.

        I have volunteered my Geno 2.0 raw data for research at NatGeo
        and I've uploaded it the appropriate FTDNA y-DNA projects.

        So, I believe I have made a contribution to science.
        I just wish I could be privy to the results.
        It is a shame that citizen-science y-DNA research is now on the back burner at FTDNA.
        I am truly disappointed.
        Last edited by ajmr1a1; 13th September 2013, 07:49 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Kind of sorry I opened up my big mouth about what Wells told me.
          Not my fault NatGeo and Wells are vague in their answers to our questions on Twitter, we asked the right questions MMaddi, their reply was short and vague, can't help how they respond.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Donald Locke View Post
            Not my fault NatGeo and Wells are vague in their answers to our questions on Twitter, we asked the right questions MMaddi, their reply was short and vague, can't help how they respond.
            You're right Donald. You can only saw so much in 140 characters.

            Comment


            • #21
              I've never tested for ydna and never interacted with Krahn but I've seen his name a few times over the years. Why was Thomas Krahn let go? Is he forming a new company?

              Does his leaving have anything to do with the new A00 ?

              http://oldesthumandna.blogspot.com/

              https://www.microryza.com/projects/y...f-the-homeland



              Originally posted by ajmr1a1 View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by rainbow View Post
                I've never tested for ydna and never interacted with Krahn but I've seen his name a few times over the years. Why was Thomas Krahn let go?
                I gather that Thomas is on holiday at present and I've heard that there may be an official statement when he returns.

                What we do know: Thomas Krahan was FTDNA's Chief Y Scientist. FTDNA's parent company Gene By Gene recently acquired Arpeggi, Inc and they have appointed David Mittelman Chief Scientific Officer, so I guess Thomas was made kind of redundant by that move.

                http://bionews-tx.com/news/2013/08/0...ostic-company/

                Is he forming a new company?
                Thomas owns DNA Fingerprint. This from his bio, which interestingly is still on FTDNA's website:

                "Thomas has planned and established FTDNA's Genomics Research Center in Houston. He graduated from the Technical University of Berlin with an MSC (Dipl. - Ing.) in biotechnology and genetics. He started his own DNA-Fingerprint laboratory in Germany in 2005, which later became the foundation and knowledge base on which on the GRC laboratory was built."
                Last edited by gtc; 18th September 2013, 04:28 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by aidan View Post
                  You're right Donald. You can only saw so much in 140 characters.
                  One can say a lot in 140 characters if one has something to say and feels some urgency to say it.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Donald Locke View Post
                    Kind of sorry I opened up my big mouth about what Wells told me.
                    Not my fault NatGeo and Wells are vague in their answers to our questions on Twitter, we asked the right questions MMaddi, their reply was short and vague, can't help how they respond.
                    I wasn't blaming you for the lack of specific information. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I was just hoping that you could get Wells to be more specific with a follow-up question.

                    See my post in another thread at http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...6&postcount=23 about the possibility that Wells will publish a paper with the new tree this month in Science magazine.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Wells may publish a Y Tree. That's nice. What's next?

                      Will FTDNA also announce a whole Y test? They have to do something to get their customers to pay for the discovery of the Y SNP's that will be tested by Geno 3.0 as their customers of WTY paid for the discovery of some of the Y SNP's tested in Geno 2.0. If FTDNA announced a whole Y that would obviate the need to take Geno 3.0 for those who test FTDNA's whole Y and run afoul of FTDNA's non-compete agreement with Geno.

                      Arguably, FTDNA's most committed Y testers will or may receive some value in return for the harvest of their expensively-purchased Y data when and if Wells Y tree is published, as they may see how their expensively-purchased Y SNP's test-out against the large (anyone know how large?) Geno user base, even if the majority of the Geno user base are, otherwise, FTDNA customers.

                      But then what? What does one next do?

                      I personally thought the worst thing that ever happened to mtDNA testing was 23andMe with their limited assay of mtDNA - just enough to assign a subclade based on phylogeny of three years ago. With that assay you get what you're testing for, or you don't, and even if all goes well the data derived cannot be employed to pose any questions to existing mtDNA phylogeny.

                      With Geno 2.0 FTDNA has gone down the same path as 23andMe and trashed their "gold standard" franchise FOR BOTH mtDNA and Y testing.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
                        See my post in another thread at http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...6&postcount=23 about the possibility that Wells will publish a paper with the new tree this month in Science magazine.
                        Well, if that's true, then it's about time!

                        I recall there being talk about a "Wells paper" since Geno 2 was first announced more that a year ago.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by gtc View Post
                          Well, if that's true, then it's about time!

                          I recall there being talk about a "Wells paper" since Geno 2 was first announced more that a year ago.
                          Wells "may" publish the new y-DNA tree this month?
                          ....prepare to be underwhelmed.

                          What is the publication date each month of Science magazine anyway?
                          Does anybody know?

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X