To: pike-dna-l@rootsweb.com
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:41:50 -0230 (NDT)
From: dapike@math.mun.ca (David Pike)
Subject: [PIKE-DNA] A new result, plus conference overview


Hi everybody.

Just as I was departing to go to FamilyTreeDNA's annual conference
for project coordinators the other weekend, new DNA results for
David Hilton Pike (kit 98682) began to come back from the lab.
David's are our first results from a participant in South Africa,
where his ancestor William Pike settled in 1820.  William is known
to have emigrated from the village of Keyworth in Nottinghamshire,
England, and so David's results have enabled us to put another
pushpin into our map of Pike families in the British Isles:
http://www.math.mun.ca/~dapike/family_history/pike/DNA/index.php?content=results.html#Map

David's results are distinct from everybody else in our project,
with his closest genetic match being with Karen Pike Zimmerman's
brother (kit 61277)... they differ on 5 markers at the 25-marker
level (and 3 at the 12-marker level).  Given these differences,
FamilyTreeDNA estimates that the probability that they share a
common Pike ancestor within the past 400 years is about 10%.
So our tally of unrelated Pike families is now up to 32, and
the number of different Pike lines in the British Isles is
now up to 11.

While I'm writing, let me share a few things from the FamilyTreeDNA
conference.  Among the presentations were a few given by administrators
of some other DNA projects, who shared some of their experiences and
insights.  One of them, Emily Aulicino, is working closely with her
local genealogical society by coordinating a DNA interest group
for the Genealogical Forum of Oregon.  The GFO has registered as a
FamilyTreeDNA affiliate and so it receives commissions from FTDNA
when GFO members order DNA tests.  My reason for mentioning this to
everbody is twofold:
(1) to let those of you who are involved with genealogy societies
know that your societies might also be able to tap into commissions
(2) to clarify that surname projects such as ours are not entitled
to earn commissions, meaning that Stu and I are just enthusiastic
volunteers.

Emily also noted that in her Tally/Talley surname project, various
people have been active in doing "reverse genealogy" in an attempt to
find DNA samples for various family lines of key interest.  By "reverse
genealogy" is meant the process of starting with somebody in the distant
past and working forward in time, tracking their descendants with the
aid of various genealogical records up to the point of the most recent
census data [1930 in the USA, 1901 for the UK, and 1911 for Canada].
The final step is to try to bridge the gap from the latest available
census to the present, which typically involves writing or phoning
people in the places where family members were last observed.

To relate this kind of effort to our project, we have done this with
success a few times already, albeit quietly and behind-the-scenes.
If you would like to help in trying to reach out to fellow Pikes in
this way and haven't already told us so, then let Stu and I know so
that these kinds of recruiting efforts can be coordinated.  One of
the notable Pike lines that we have not yet been able to obtain DNA
samples for is the family of Samuel Pike who settled in Pasquotank County,
North Carolina in the 1680s or 1690s.  As with the Tally/Talley project,
it has been helpful to be able to make use of our project's Sponsorship
Fund once contact with members of key lines has been made.

Among the other conference presentations, a representative from the
National Geographic Society gave an update about the Genographic Project,
which is now about half way through its 5-year mandate.  They have now
sold over 225,000 DNA kits as part of their public participation program,
of which over 200,000 have had DNA results analysed.  The non-public
component of the Genographic Project involves DNA testing of indiginous
peoples around the world.  So far 27,479 indiginous samples have been
collected, of which 170 are from North America.

There was a discussion session that was chaired by FamilyTreeDNA's
Information Technology leader, Adrian Williams [who is also the
administrator for the Williams DNA Project].  From this session it
was clear that a major overhaul of the FTDNA website is underway,
although it might not be released for another 6 to 9 months, although
some enhancements will be rolled out a bit sooner.  One thing that
FTDNA wants to accomplish with the new site is to better integrate
the genealogical aspects of our research with the genetic testing
services that FTDNA is providing to us.

Another session at the conference took the form of a panel discussion,
in which about 4 project coordinators shared their thoughts and experiences
on some of the ethical issues that arise from time to time.  One issue
that received plenty of discussion was on the topic of what to do when
a project participant passes away, and particularly in the situation when
somebody wants to upgrade his results to more markers.  This issue has
also touched our project, for whom 3 of our DNA donors have passed away
since providing a DNA sample.  It was interesting to hear the discussion,
and in the end it was reassuring that our project has made use of a
Consent Form from the very beginning, and that this form specifically asks
people if they are willing to let their DNA results be upgraded after their
death.

Another issue that came up during this ethics panel discussion concerned
divulging personal information.  Again, our project's Consent Form addresses
most of these issues, but there is an issue that we left out:  are Stu and I
permitted to share contact details with people who are genetic matches?  We
don't display postal addresses or phone numbers on our website, and sometimes
email addresses have ceased to be valid.  As one or two people will already
know, Stu and I won't give out postal addresses or phone numbers without
consent, which can sometimes impede contact between people who match with
one another.  So what we've now done is to update our project's Consent Form
to include some specific questions so that Stu and I will know if/when we
are able to share contact details (such as address and phone number) with
people who are close genetic matches.  Anybody who wants to grant such
consent is therefore asked to update their information by filling out a
new consent form, available from here:
http://www.math.mun.ca/~dapike/family_history/pike/DNA/consent.pdf

Some of us who have been around for a while will recall that for each
of the past few years FTDNA has had some form of promotion around this
time of year.  It was announced by Bennett Greenspan (the president of
FTDNA, who is also a genealogist) that this year's promotion will begin
in early November, but no details of what form it will take were stated.
Once Stu and I are informed of the details, we'll update the "How to Join"
page for our project accordingly.  If you would like for us to contact you
directly when we have more information, then just let us know by email.

On a personal note, this is now the third FTDNA conference that I've
attended, and each one I have found informative and worthwhile.  Each
time I've been able to attend by redeeming frequent flyer points, which
has typically meant that I've had some less-than-ideal travel itineraries.
I reckon it also means that I'm at the bottom of the pecking order when it
comes to such things as stand-by flights, etc.  I've had more than a few
travel mis-adventures, and this latest trip was no exception in this regard.
On my way to the conference, after I had arrived and gone through US customs
at the airport in Newark and then went to catch my connecting flight to
Cincinnati, I was denied boarding because the flight was oversold.  I was
re-accommodated by being put on a flight with a different airline, but when
I went to check in with them it turned out that I had actually been put on
stand-by.  Some weather delays prevented some connecting passengers from
arriving on time, so I did manage to get on board after all and arrive in
Houston in time for the conference.

When I was denied boarding my flight to Cincinnati, Delta Airlines gave me
a $200 travel voucher that's good for a year.  I'm not sure if I'll get a
chance to use it [partly because Delta's service to St. John's is actually
a codeshare flight operated by an affiliate of Continental Airlines, and it
only offers about 4 flights here per week].  However, I can assign the
voucher to a designee, so if one of you is making travel plans with Delta
over the next while then perhaps you can check with me to see if I've still
got the voucher.  I would be pleased to have it used in support of a trip
that involves some genealogical research, or perhaps to have some of the
savings from the voucher directed to our project's Sponsorship Fund,
which currently has a balance of $39.

Take care,

- David.