There's little point to writing my own review of the first Institute for Genetic Genealogy conference I attended last weekend. Just read the posts Recap: I4GG by Judy Russell and I4GG's First International Conference on Genetic Genealogy by Maurice Gleeson.
As expected the plenary presentation by National Geographic Explorer in Residence Spencer Wells was a highlight. He pointed out that the past year had seen the same number of tests taken as in all previous years combined, and that the existing companies in the field had a lock-hold on the business.
The fastest growth is in autosomal DNA testing. 23andMe claimed to have 750,000 clients tested and AncestryDNA 500,000. Family Tree DNA didn't give a figure but one estimate shown was less than 100,000 autosomal test clients. Gedmatch, which permits testers at any of those three to upload their results for comparison with the other company uploaded data, has 25,000 records.
Maurice Gleeson's presentations were extremely well received, you can see the major one at http://youtu.be/h5CQsmu8HMA.
It was good to see a solid attendance from the genealogy establishment - from the Board for Certification of Genealogists. It would be helpful if BCG would make it clear that they regard DNA evidence to be as essential as that from any conventional record type in meeting the Genealogical Proof Standard.
I can't speak for BCG, since I am merely one member of the BCG Board of Trustees. But I have spoken on this issue on my blog in the post "DNA and the GPS" (http://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/2014/08/03/dna-and-the-gps/).
ReplyDeleteI also think the new Genealogy Standards book from BCG does speak to the issue by saying research plans must consider all relevant evidence and concepts including those from genetics.