Via Dienekes, Study explores how accurately men gauge paternity. The paper itself, How well does paternity confidence match actual paternity? Evidence from worldwide nonpaternity rates, has been available in preprint form for a while now. I mention it here in part because it can sometimes be difficult to track down the reference in our archives. The paper seems to point to the reality that type I error (false positive) seems common when it comes to suspicion of paternity, but honestly, 1-2% rates of type II error isn't all that reassuring to many men I suspect. As the post-genomic era advances it seems plausible that routine screens of families for genetic predispositions are going to put professionals in sticky ethical situations, though I assume they would keep any pattern of glaring genomic discordances to themselves....