• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

DNA finger printing could soon reveal your surname

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
14,014
The laboratory which invented genetic fingerprinting believes the same technique could be refined to reveal the surnames of men.

A study of more than 2,500 men bearing over five hundred different surnames found those with the same family name are highly likely to be genetically linked.

The system works by isolating the Y chromosome of the DNA which - like a surname - is passed down the male line virtually untouched. This is then cross-matched against a proposed database of more than 40,000 names.

Despite many names in this country being hundreds of years old there is still on average a quarter chance that a match can be found, the research suggests.

With rarer names such as Attenborough, Swindlehurst and Kettley there is a higher the percentage likelihood of a match, with up to 87 per cent chance they will share a common genetic inheritance.

Dr Turi Kin of the University of Leicester, who carried out the research, said the technique could help genealogists as well as police investigating crimes.

Dr King said: "In Britain, surnames are passed down from father to son. A piece of our DNA, the Y chromosome, is the one part of our genetic material that confers maleness and is passed, like surnames, from father to son. Therefore, a link could exist between a man's surname and the type of Y chromosome he carries. A simple link between name and Y chromosome could in principle connect all men sharing a surname into one large family tree.

Dr King said that the system could be a "useful investigative tool".

"We could take DNA from the scene of a crime and come up with a possible surname for the culprit", she said.

"It could help prioritise an investigation and point detectives to the right door to knock. The rarer the surname, the stronger the link."

Dr King works in the Genetics Department of the university where the revolutionary technique of genetic fingerprinting was invented by Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys in 1984.

For the research, she recruited more than two and a half thousand men bearing over 500 different surnames to take part in the study including the scientist Sir David Attenborough.

Dr King's research showed that on average between two men who share the same surname there is a 24 per cent chance of sharing a common ancestor through that name but that this increases to nearly 50 per cent if the surname they have is rare.

Dr King then went on to look at 40 surnames in depth by recruiting many different men all bearing the same surname, making sure that she excluded known relatives.

Surnames such as Attenborough and Swindlehurst showed that on average more than 70 per cent of the men shared the same or near identical Y chromosome types.

Events such as adoptions, name-changes and non-paternities would also confuse any simple genetic link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3153260/DNA-finger-printing-could-soon-reveal-your-surname.html

maximus otter
 
So,Big Brother knows that someone with the surname 'Smith' or 'Jones' committed the 'crime'(or is perhaps just a 'political enemy') so,what?What is he gonna do?Arrest ALL Smiths & Jonese?..Maybe so,in Police State Britian today!You never know!But then I guess you're OK with that because you never know he MIGHT be a terrorist or something!Might be,... never mind proof ....or juries or peers or evidence or formalities like that because big brother said so.I saw it on the news!Therefore it's true.Got ya!I understand.
 
I'll refer you to the answer I gave here, waitew.

Maybe you want to sit down for a minute, maybe breathe into a paper bag..?
 
Isn't this giving carte blanche for Sting, Bono and Marilyn to start their own evil crime syndicate?

Please feel free to make any comments about The Police or criminal records.
 
And Cher and Madonna. And Bjork.

They could all get together and breed a race of undetectable international celebrity super-criminals.
 
isn't this a new series starting on BBC3 this autumn?
 
_Lizard23_ said:
And Cher and Madonna. And Bjork.

They could all get together and breed a race of undetectable international celebrity super-criminals.
Ah but they're women - they won't be able to detect them via surnames anyway. That said Guy Ritchie is known as Mr Madonna.

Not for much longer though.
 
My paternal grandmother was married twice,and had several kids.
However, my real grandfather was neither of her two hubbies, but - er - A.N.Other....

Perhaps this genetic test could reveal what my surname would have been if proceedings had taken place on the right side of the bedsheets!

(As it is, I carry the surname of her first husband.)
 
Don't mention the DNA..!

Half of Britons have German blood
They are among Britain’s most bitter rivals, but despite two world wars and any number of football matches, it would seem we are closer to the Germans than many might imagine.
11:55PM BST 20 Jun 2011

Geneticists claim that as many as half of Britons have German blood, a consequence of Anglo-Saxon migration after the Roman Empire fell.
“There is no use in denying it,” Der Spiegel, the German news magazine, wrote this week. “It is now clear the nation which most dislikes the Germans were once Krauts themselves.”

University College London academics studied a segment of the Y chromosome that appears in almost all Danish and north German men. They found that half of British men also have the segment.
Researchers following up the UCL study claim that Anglo-Saxons swiftly took over Britain and changed the genetic make-up of its inhabitants.

Heinrich Härke, an archaeologist at the University of Reading, said that “up to 200,000 emigrants” came to south east England in the fifth and sixth centuries. In a study of a Saxon cemetery near Oxford, he found that a quarter of its artefacts matched those discovered along the Elbe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... blood.html
 
But I'll bet the Saxons didn't spring out of the Germanic rocks.
Genetics and history always make nonsense of nationalism.

Apparently some Americans are part European. ;)
 
Yay on the effort to create more suspects!!!!

I still say it would be better if we concentrated our efforts on reaching and teaching young people BEFORE they offend and commit crimes in the first place.
Like Minority Report...but sensible.
 
i`m sure i`ve read somewhere recently that men can now legally take the surname of their wives upon marriage, if they choose to. If this is the case, and men do, that maybe decades down the line this rule will be obsolete?
Also, what about the children who aren`t given their fathers surname, for example, men who shirk their responsibilities and have no bearing on their childrens upbringing, or who leave their spouses before they have the baby?
 
Get everyone on the database now, and then all crime would stop ?????
 
There is only ONE OTHER male person in the UK with my surname....and that's me dad.

There are four female people with my surname in the country - me mum, me nan and two ladies we don't know, but I'm probably related to them in some way by the sounds of it.

Basically, my name dies with me.

Technically, my cats have my surname, but humanwise it's all over with me.
 
'TheDJ' certainly is not a common name, it's true... :)
 
Since DNA only has four bases, labelled A, C, G and T, it can't really spell many names at all!

Er, Gact, Tag, Cat...

I think we have Vulcan DNA... :shock:
 
Like I was saying, creating more suspects doesn't necessarily mean a better outcome when it comes to solving crimes.

It's worth looking at Ben Goldacre's view on the exponential false positives that DNA sampling throws up.

Let’s imagine you have an amazingly accurate test, and each time you use it on a true suspect, it will correctly identify them as such 8 times out of 10 (but miss them 2 times out of 10); and each time you use it on an innocent person, it will correctly identify them as innocent 9 times out of 10, but incorrectly identify them as a suspect 1 time out of 10.

These numbers tell you about the chances of a test result being accurate, given the status of the individual, which you already know (and the numbers are a stable property of the test). But you stand at the other end of the telescope: you have the result of a test, and you want to use that to work out the status of the individual. That depends entirely on how many suspects there are in the population being tested.

If you have 10 people, and you know that 1 is a suspect, and you assess them all with this test, then you will correctly get your one true positive and – on average – 1 false positive. If you have 100 people, and you know that 1 is a suspect, you will get your one true positive and, on average, 10 false positives. If you’re looking for one suspect among 1000 people, you will get your suspect, and 100 false positives. Once your false positives begin to dwarf your true positives, a positive result from the test becomes pretty unhelpful.

Remember this is a screening tool, for assessing dodgy behaviour, spotting dodgy patterns, in a general population. We are invited to accept that everybody’s data will be surveyed and processed, because MI5 have clever algorithms to identify people who were never previously suspected. There are 60 million people in the UK, with, let’s say, 10,000 true suspects. Using your unrealistically accurate imaginary screening test, you get 6 million false positives. At the same time, of your 10,000 true suspects, you miss 2,000.


http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/datam ... it-worked/

If one false positive throws up an innocent person, then potentially, those with the same surname who are also innocent will find themselves suspect adding to the numbers.
 
Back
Top