Guest Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 @njjohn - there should be a chain of custody no matter if blind or not. Many samples taken to labs are of unidentified substances but that chain of custody is very important to establish that it is THE sample. It is very important.
Guest BartloJays Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 Got a question for Genes, Ridge, Theagenes etc... Does Ketchum automatically own her sequence data like an intellectual property situation? Let me rephrase that because this is very important. Is it justifiable to not release "full" sequence data because ownership and control of that sequence data could be relinquished or non -protected if she was to do so? If yes, are protective ownership measures feasible to get enacted rather quickly? Bottom line is concern for ownership of sequence data a realistic excuse not to share it? Thanks in advance guys
Guest Silent Sam Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 Did they mean no chain of custody "at all"? She did say that she could not vouch for the chain of custody before it came to her, but once she received the samples she established a chain of custody. If the lab did not have a chain of custody at all this contradicts what she stated on C2C. The email was very clearly worded. The samples the lab received from Ketchum had no chain of custody attached to them. She sent the samples to family tree and the other labs blind, so they didn't know what they were testing. Do blind samples usually include chain of custody? Or to keep it blind, the samples alone are sent? It would be very easy to send a "blind" sample while maintaining a chain of custody. All you would have to do is use a numerical system known by the submitter but not known by the testing lab. This happens thousands of times a day with employee drug screening just to give you one example.
Guest Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 The email was very clearly worded. The samples the lab received from Ketchum had no chain of custody attached to them. A disturbing statement for several reasons. Thank you.
Guest BartloJays Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 (edited) Sample 26 may be bear, and if so I wouldn't mind at all removing it from the results. I'm more than ready to evaluate the rest. You would be OK with her removing this from the study? Coincidentally "the centerpiece" of her study that was the only one appropriately vetted independent of her? Let's just say this would not be acceptable to alot of people, and I would like to see her try Edited February 23, 2013 by BartloJays
southernyahoo Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 In her paper Ketchum states the samples were treated as forensic samples and cataloged to maintain a chain of custody. However when I spoke with Family Tree DNA (one of the "For Hire" labs listed in the paper) they informed me that the samples they received had no chain of custody. Maybe because Family tree was only one part of it and not meant to know the rest?
Guest Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 (edited) Got a question for Genes, Ridge, Theagenes etc... Does Ketchum automatically own her sequence data like an intellectual property situation? Let me rephrase that because this is very important. Is it justifiable to not release "full" sequence data because ownership and control of that sequence data could be relinquished or non -protected if she was to do so? If yes, are protective ownership measures feasible to get enacted rather quickly? Bottom line is concern for ownership of sequence data a realistic excuse not to share it? Thanks in advance guys I don't know if this answers your particular question exactly, but once one publishes a sequence, it is free for anyone to use. I don't think someone other than the person who came up with it could attempt to patent it per se (the whole DNA patenting aspects are confusing and under evaluation). Any results, discoveries, or conclusions based on the published sequence should be "owned" by the discoverer, not the person who put the sequence out there. Currently her sequence would be considered proprietary. Most scientists publish to advance their field and are not concerned about ownership (although many institutions are very keen to patent what they can - thereby allowing for revenue if something from the data eventually is commercialized). Edited February 23, 2013 by ridgerunner
southernyahoo Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 You would be OK with her removing this from the study? Coincidentally "the centerpiece" of her study that was the only one appropriately vetted independent of her? Let's just say this would not be acceptable to alot of people, and I would like to see her try She can do what she wants with her study, and please don't try to speak for all the other submitters and their samples. Some that Erickson sent to Disotell "also tested human" are in this study. The human result isn't going away. Sample 26 is just one of the genomes. If it shouldn't be in this study, it should be removed . This is the point of vetting it right? Or is the point to take down Ketchum?
Guest BartloJays Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 Thank you RR- I think I got it. So essentially she can patent the sequences to leave no question (if there even is one) thereby this is not a very legitimate excuse to keep you from releasing full sequence data? I appreciate it bud as this is an important question
Guest Silent Sam Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 Maybe because Family tree was only one part of it and not meant to know the rest? Ignoring for a moment the fact that Family Tree completely contradicts Ketchum's claim chain of custody is crucial in any kind scientific testing, even if it is only a portion of a much larger batch of tests. There's simply no excuse to not maintain a proper chain of custody.
Guest njjohn Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 Sam, if they sent individual samples to each of the 12 labs, and documented the chain of custody of the samples internally, would their be a reason to send each lab a copy of that chain of custody? Since they were sent directly to each lab, and only results being sent back, not going from lab to lab to lab? I'm just asking so I understand completely.
bipedalist Posted February 23, 2013 BFF Patron Posted February 23, 2013 (edited) You would be OK with her removing this from the study? Coincidentally "the centerpiece" of her study that was the only one appropriately vetted independent of her? Let's just say this would not be acceptable to alot of people, and I would like to see her try I think from an early stage, many viewed the sheer quantity of samples as being insurance that there was no need for dependence on a so-called "centerpiece" sample. Such sentiment has been reiterated for years in this thread. I think if the study is valid then there should be plenty of sequencing done to uncover a result without the Smeja sample. I thought Ketchum or a representative of hers qualified the chain of custody as well as the sampling of dna from participants to help sequester or identify any potential contamination? Am I wrong in that assumption SY? Or were we just fed that as best practices? Edited February 23, 2013 by bipedalist
Guest Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 I have another, and seemingly final update from my PhD contact who would prefer not to post here: Please tell him thank you and that many of the forum members really appreciate the effort he has given.
Guest BartloJays Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 She can do what she wants with her study, and please don't try to speak for all the other submitters and their samples. Some that Erickson sent to Disotell "also tested human" are in this study. The human result isn't going away. Sample 26 is just one of the genomes. If it shouldn't be in this study, it should be removed . This is the point of vetting it right? Or is the point to take down Ketchum? I'm doing no such thing.. as far as speak for any submitters, as I believe there's legitimate samples in there but I fear their value has been diminished (I don't blame the submitters) because of who and how they were presented. But that's my opinion as I don't have a say on that and I hope those samples are salvaged if they have value. No...for me the process of vetting the sample was to get to the truth of the sample and make sure a best friend, the public and "submitters" were not being defrauded. "If" she goes down, there's only one person to blame and only one person any of you should blame.
Guest Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 Thank you RR- I think I got it. So essentially she can patent the sequences to leave no question (if there even is one) thereby this is not a very legitimate excuse to keep you from releasing full sequence data? I appreciate it bud as this is an important question I am not certain of this, but I don't think one can patent dna sequence on its own. I believe there have been patents given for human dna to some pharma or biotech companies as basis for diagnostic screening, or if the gene is to be used as a therapeutic, but I have not been following this too closely as of late. That said, one could not take someone else's sequence and slap a patent on it if they thought gene X would be beneficial. Again, discovery based on (and further built upon) that sequence could be patented by that discover (without any tie to the original generator of the sequence). Or so I believe... patent law is a field of its own.
Recommended Posts