On the whole genomics will not be individually transformative…for now

A new piece in The Guardian, ‘Your father’s not your father’: when DNA tests reveal more than you bargained for, is one of the two major genres in writings on personal genomics in the media right now (there are exceptions). First, there is the genre where genetics doesn’t do anything for you. It’s a waste of money! Second, there is the genre where genetics rocks our whole world, and it’s dangerous to one’s own self-identity. And so on. Basically, the two optimum peaks in this field of journalism are between banal and sinister.

In response to this, I stated that for most people personal genomics will probably have an impact somewhere in the middle. To be fair, someone reading the headline of the comment I co-authored in Genome Biology, Consumer genomics will change your life, whether you get tested or not, may wonder as the seeming contradiction.

But it’s not really there. On the aggregate social level genomics is going to have a non-trivial impact on health and lifestyle. This is a large proportion of our GDP. So it’s “kind of a big deal” in that sense. But, for many individuals, the outcomes will be quite modest. For a small minority of individuals, there will be real and important medical consequences. In these cases, the outcomes are a big deal. But for most people, genetic dispositions and risks are diffuse, of modest effect, and often backloaded in one’s life. Even though it will impact most of society in the near future, it’s touch will be gentle.

An analogy here can be made with BMI or body-mass-index. As an individual predictor and statistic, it leaves a lot to be desired. But, for public health scientists and officials aggregate BMI distributions are critical to getting a sense of the landscape.

Finally, this is focusing on genomics where we read the sequence (or get back genotype results). The next stage that might really be game-changing is the write revolution. CRISPR genetic engineering. In the 2020s I assume that CRISPR applications will mostly be in critical health contexts (e.g., “fixing” Mendelian diseases), or in non-human contexts (e.g., agricultural genetics). Like genomics, the ubiquity of genetic engineering will be kind of a big deal economically in the aggregate, but it won’t be a big deal for individuals.

If you are a transhumanist or whatever they call themselves now, one can imagine a scenario where a large portion of the population starts “re-writing” themselves. That would be both a huge aggregate and individual impact. But we’re a long way from that….

There could be 100 million genotyping kits sold by January 1st 2020

The figure to the right is from the comment David Mittelman and I wrote for Genome Biology, Consumer genomics will change your life, whether you get tested or not. The original numbers are from ISOGG, which does a great job collating information from a variety of sources. When final revisions for the comment were due, we only found data up to 5/1/2018.

That being said, I thought it would be useful to generate a chart where I combined and smoothed the results from the various companies. It is clear that the period after 2016 is when you see massive takeoff and adoption, driven first by Ancestry, but later by 23andMe joining the race. The other companies have been increasing their sales as well, with new players such as MyHeritage making a big play.

All this makes me wonder: what does the future have it store? Year-to-year the total number of kits in circulation were doubling in 2013 and 2014. That rate dropped to ~1.6-fold increases in 2015 and 2016. A lot of this is due to 23andMe turning away from customer acquisition (more marketing always leads to more sales). With 23andMe competing with Ancestry again in 2017 one saw a >2.5-fold increase in the number of kits sold.

My back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate that around 1.8 million kits were being sold per month between the big players in the first in the first 4 months of 2018. That’s about 18 million kits this year. That means 29 million kits total in circulation by January 1st of 2019. The wildcard here though is that this space is “consumer”, which means that a disproportionate number of kits are going to be sold between Halloween and Christmas. Extrapolating from the period between January 1st to May 1st, as I’m doing above, could be way too conservative.

The sales in markets outside of the USA, along with customer acquisition through marketing, need to keep increasing up until January 1st of 2020 for there to be 100 million kits sold. But I think it’s very possible. I’m on the bubble of saying even likely. The wholesale price of arrays (the chips) keeps decreasing, so the price point of the consumer product is also decreasing. This isn’t a situation where the market is growing linearly, it’s exponential. A few positive shocks here and there 100 million by January 1st of 2020 may seem conservative.

Addendum: There has been some confusion in the media between sequencing and genotyping platforms. These are different technologies. Genotyping platforms, SNP-arrays, are targeting a genome-wide subset of polymorphisms. 23andMe’s current chip seems to probe about 630,000 markers. The whole genome consists of 3 billion bases. In the 2020s sequencing will probably replace targeted genotyping arrays in consumer products, but it will probably really come to the fore first in the medical space.

Consumer Genomics in 2018, beyond the future’s threshold

In 2013 David Mittelman and I wrote Rumors of the death of consumer genomics are greatly exaggerated. This was in the wake of the FDA controversy with 23andMe, and continuing worries about DNA and privacy. Today David and I came out with a new comment in Genome BiologyConsumer genomics will change your life, whether you get tested or not.

Really transformative technology becomes beneath comment. As long as we’re having to comment about genomics, it isn’t really mainstream. But I think in 2018 it is much clearer that the 2020s will see legitimate mainstreaming. The numbers speak for themselves. I hadn’t realized in a visceral manner how much had changed since our original comment came out. It’s pretty much an order of magnitude shift.

My hypothesis for why 23andMe plateaued for a while at ~1 million is that that was the sample size which maximized the statistical power they wanted to catch loci of particular effect sizes. In the initial years, 23andMe was not just buying customers with marketing, it was subsidizing the array costs. Today Illumina SNP arrays are well under $50 (some people say less than $25) wholesale, so I think at some point in early 2017 they realized even though 10 million wasn’t worth much to them in comparison to 1 million for GWAS, they were going to lose the luster of being “market leader” to Ancestry, who were acquiring customers at a massive clip through their marketing (my understanding is that at some point Illumina was having issues processing the samples that Ancestry was returning to them it was at such high scale; higher than Ancestry had anticipated!).

At least today we can explore personal genomics

A very long piece on the “personal genomics industry.” Lots of quotes from my boss Spencer Wells, since he has been in the game so long.

The piece covers all the bases. I actually think some of the criticisms of direct-to-consumer genetics are on base. I just don’t think they’re insoluble problems, or problems so large that that should discourage the industry from growing. I think part of the problem is that many of the people journalists can talk to who can comment on the industry are based in academia, and academia has a different focus when it comes to comes to genetics than the nascent industry. For rational reasons academics need to be very careful when it comes to ethics. Consumer products I think are somewhat different.

But I do think we need to reflect how far we’ve come in 10 years. Back in the 2000s when I was reading stuff on Y, mtDNA and autosomal studies, I honestly didn’t imagine that I would know my own haplogroups and genome-wide ancestry decomposition. It seemed like science fiction. That all changed rather rapidly over a few years, and I purchased kits in the early years when the price was still high. Today it’s a mass industry, with a sub-$100 price point in many cases.

Yes, there are plenty of cautions and worries we need to consider. But the future is already the present, and the horse has left the stable.

Personal genomics lives!

Reflecting back to it I think I started “exploring personal genomics” in the late 2000s. That’s when direct-to-consumer testing started to become popular, albeit very niche. The book Exploring Personal Genomics is now 5 years old, and a lot has changed since then. In the same year, 2013, David Mittelman and I cowrote Rumors of the death of consumer genomics are greatly exaggerated in Genome Biology.

Now Science has a commentary out, Crowdsourced genealogies and genomes, which reviews how large amounts of public data, genetic and classical genealogical, are being used to change the field before our very eyes. I would recommend though that you read the less edited (longer, more detailed) version on the website of the authors, Crowdsourcing big data research on human history and health: from genealogies to genomes and back again.

This fact from that piece is really illustrative of what’s happening today:

As the number of customers of whole-genome DTC genetic testing just crossed 16 million, it is worth noting that almost two-thirds of them joined since the beginning of 2017 [19]. Based on current rates, this number of customers is predicted to be close to 100 million by end of 2020.

Notes from the personal genomic inflection point

There’s a debate that periodically crops up online about the utility, viability, and morality of returning results from genetic tests to consumers. Consumers here means people like you or me. Pretty much everyone.

If you want to caricature two stylized camps, there are information maximalists who proclaim a utopia now, where people can find out so much about themselves through their genome. And then there are information elitists, who emphasize that the public can’t handle the truth. Or, more accurately, that throwing information without context and interpretation from someone who knows better is not just useless, it’s dangerous.

Of course, most people will stake out more nuanced complex positions. That’s not the point. Here is my bottom-line, which I’ve probably held since about ~2010:

  1. The value for most people in actionable information in direct-to-consumer genetics is probably not there yet when set against the cost.
  2. With the reduction in the cost of genotyping and sequencing, there’s no way that we have enough trained professionals to handle the surfeit of information. And there will really be no way in 10 years when a large proportion of the American population will be sequenced.

At some point, the cost will come down enough, and the science probably is strong enough, that direct-to-consumer genetics moves away from novelty and early adopters to the mass market. At that point, we need to be able to make the best use of that data. Genetic counselors, geneticists, and doctors all cost a fair amount of money and have a finite amount of labor supply to provide to the public. They need to focus on serious, complex, and consequential cases.

To some extent, we need to reduce much of interpretation in the personal genomics space to an information technology problem. For example, if someone’s genotype pulls out a bunch of statistically significant hits of interest the tool should automatically condition significance on that individual’s genetic background.

Yes, there are primitive forms of these sorts of tools out there already. But they’re not good enough. And that’s because there isn’t the market need. But there will be.

The 23andMe BRCA test

In case you were sleeping under a rock, 23andMe got FDA approval for DTC testing of markers related to BRCA risk. Obviously, this is a pretty big step, in principle.

But the short-term implications are not that earth-shaking.

From the FDA release:

The three BRCA1/BRCA2 hereditary mutations detected by the test are present in about 2 percent of Ashkenazi Jewish women, according to a National Cancer Institute study, but rarely occur (0 percent to 0.1 percent) in other ethnic populations. All individuals, whether they are of Ashkenazi Jewish descent or not, may have other mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes, or other cancer-related gene mutations that are not detected by this test. For this reason, a negative test result could still mean that a person has an increased risk of cancer due to gene mutations….

Apparently, women with one of these variants have a 45-85% chance of developing breast cancer by age 70. So the penetrance is high.

It seems that you’ll know if this sort of test is going to have utility for you based on family history.

The big thing is the transition to DTC. This will increase availability and drive the price down. That’s probably going to mean more work for those engaged in interpretation and education. False positives are going to start being a major thing….

Helix kit price waived until December 26 at 2:59am EST

Happy Hanukkah! My main qualm with wishing you a happy holiday is that I’m a thorough assimilator and I don’t want to be disemboweled.

For the context, listen to the Stuff You Missed in History Class episode on the Maccabean Revolt. As a Jewish friend of mine once observed, the Maccabees were kind of the Al-Qaeda of their day (today she would have said ISIS).

With that out of the way, I want to give you a heads up that Helix has a sale going until December 26 at 2:59am EST where the $80 kit cost for purchase of any app is waived if you haven’t purchased at app before. Just enter the promotion code HOLIDAY at checkout.

That means presales of Insitome’s Regional Ancestry is no more than $19.99, while Neanderthal is $29.99 and Metabolism is $39.99 (this applies to all of Helix’s products except embodyDNA by Lose It! and Geno 2.0 by National Geographic).

Why does it matter? Again, Helix banks a high quality exome+ (the + is for non-exonic positions) when you purchase any of their apps. If you want subsequent apps you don’t have to sent another kit in, you just buy the app and get the results. Also, I do have to say that from what I’ve seen and heard Helix’s laboratory facilities are top-notch in terms of getting results turned around rapidly.

Genomic ancestry tests are not cons, part 2: the problem of ethnicity

The results to the left are from 23andMe for someone whose paternal grandparents were immigrants from southern Germany. Their mother had a father who was of English American background (his father was a Yankee American with an English surname and his mother was an immigrant from England), and grandparents who were German (Rhinelander) and French Canadian respectively on their maternal side.

Looking at the results from 23andMe one has to wonder, why is this individual only a bit under 25% French & German, when genealogical records show places of birth that indicates they should be 75% French & German (more precisely, 62.5% German and 12.5% French). Though their ancestry is 25% English, only 13% of their ancestry is listed as such.

First, notice that nearly half of their ancestry is “Broadly Northwestern European.” Last I  checked  23andMe uses phased haplotypes to detect segments of ancestry. This is a very powerful method and is often quite good at zeroing in on people of European ancestry. But with Americans of predominant, but mixed, Northern European background rather than giving back precise proportions often you obtain results of the form of “Broadly…” because presumably, recombination has generated novel haplotypes in white Americans.

But this isn’t the whole story. Why, for example, are many of the Finnish people I know on 23andMe assigned as >90% Finnish, while a Danish friend is 40% Scandinavian?

The issue here is that to be “Finnish” and “Scandinavian” are not equivalent units in terms of population genetics. Finns are a relatively homogeneous ethnic group who seem to have undergone a recent population bottleneck. In contrast, Scandinavia encompasses several different, albeit related, ethnicities which are geographically widely distributed.

Ethnic identities are socially and historically constructed. Additionally, they are often clear and distinct. This is not always the case for population genetic classifications. On a continental scale, racial classification is trivial, and feasible with only a modest number of genetic markers. Why? Because the demographic and evolutionary history of Melanesians and West Africans, to give two concrete examples, are distinct over tens of thousands of years. Population genetic analyses which attempt to identify or differentiate these groups have a lot of raw material to work with.

Read More

Genomic ancestry tests are not cons, part 1

As someone who is part of the personal genomics sector, I keep track of media representations of the industry very closely. There is the good and the bad, some justified and some not.

But there is one aspect which I need to weigh in on because it is close to my interests and professional focus, and it is one where I have a lot of experience: ancestry inference on human data.

Periodically I see in my Twitter timeline an article shared by a biologist which is filled with either misrepresentation, confusions, and even falsehoods. Of course, some of the criticisms are correct. The problem is that when you mix truth and falsehood or sober analysis and critique with sensationalism the whole product is debased.

I’m going to address some of the most basic errors and misimpressions. This post is “part 1” because I might have follow-ups, as I feel like this is a situation where I have to put out fires periodically, as people write about things they don’t know about, and then those articles get widely shared to a credulous public.

First, if an article mentions STRs or microsatellites or a test with fewer than 1,000 markers in a direct to consumer genomic context, ignore the article. This is like an piece where the author dismisses air travel because it’s noisy due to propeller-driven planes. Propeller-driven planes are a very small niche. Similarly, the major direct to consumer firms which have sold close to ~10 million kits do not use STRs or microsatellites, very much a technology for the 1990s and 2000s. Any mention of STRs or microsatellites or low-density analyses indicate the journalist didn’t do their homework, or simply don’t care to be accurate.

Second, there is constant harping on the fact that different companies give different results. This is because tests don’t really give results as much is interpretations. The raw results consist of your genotype. On the major SNP-chip platforms this will be a file on the order of 20 MBs. The companies could provide this as the product, but most humans have difficulty grokking over 100,000 variables.

So what’s the solution? The same that scientists have been using for decades: reduce the variation into a much smaller set of elements which are human digestible, often through tables or visualization.

For example, consider a raw data set consisting of my three genotypes from 23andMe, Ancestry, and Family Tree DNA. Merged with public data these are ~201,000 single nucleotide markers. You can download the plink formatted data yourself and look at it. The PCA below shows where my three genotypes are positioned, by the Tamil South Asians. Observe that my genotypes are basically at the same point:

The differences between the different companies have nothing to do with the raw data, because with hundreds of thousands of markers they capture enough of the relevant between population differences in my genome (do you need to flip a coin 1 million times after you’ve flipped it 100,000 times to get a sense of whether it is fair?). The law of large numbers is kicking in at this point, with genotyping errors on the order of 0.5% not being sufficient to differentiate the files.

Sure enough raw genotype files of the three services match pretty closely. 99.99% for Family Tree DNA and 23andMe, 99.7% for Family Tree DNA and Ancestry, and 99.6% for Ancestry and 23andMe. For whatever reason Ancestry is the outlier here. My personal experience looking at genotype data from Illumina chips is that most are pretty high quality, but it’s not shocking to see instances with 0.5% no call or bad call rates. For phylogenetic purposes if the errors are not systematic it’s not a big deal.

The identity to other populations is consistent. About 74% to Tamils. 72-73% for other Eurasians. 71% for the Surui, an isolated Amazonian group. And 69% to Yoruba. Observe that this recapitulates the phylogenetic history of what we know for the population which I am from, Bengalis. The greater the genetic distance between two populations due to distinct evolutionary histories the greater the genetic divergence. This is not rocket science. This gets to the point that the raw results make a lot more sense when you integrate and synthesize them with other information you have. Most customers are not going into the process of getting a personal genomic ancestry test blind…but that causes pitfalls as well as opportunities.

But most people do not receive statistics of the form:

SNP Identity
You Yoruba 0.69
You German 0.72
You Japanese 0.73
You Tamil 0.74

Mind you, this is informative. It’s basically saying I am most genetically distant from Yoruba and closer in sequence to Tamils. But this is somewhat thin gruel for most people. Consider the below which is a zoom in of PC 2 vs. PC 4. I am blue and the purple/pink are Tamils, and the population at the bottom left are East Asians.

If you looked at enough PCA plots it will become rather clear I am shifted toward East Asians in comparison to most other South Asians. The high identity that I have with Japanese and Dai is due in part to the fact that I have relatively recent admixture from an East Asian population, above and beyond what is typical in South Asians. Remember, all three of my genotypes are basically on the same spot on PCA plots. That’s because they’re basically the same. Genotyping error is rather low.

How do we summarize this sort of information for a regular person? The standard method today is giving people a set of proportions with specific population labels. Why? People seem to understand population labels and proportions, but can be confused by PCA plots. Additionally, the methods that give out populations and proportions are often better at capturing pulse admixture events relatively recent in time than PCA, and for most consumers of ancestry services, this is an area that they are particularly focused on (i.e., Americans).

An easy way to make one’s genetic variation comprehensible to the general public is to model them as a mixture of various populations that they already know of. So consider the ones above in the plink file. I ran ADMIXTURE in supervised model progressively removing populations for my three genotypes. The results are below.

  Dai Druze German Japanese Papuan Sardinian Surui Tamil Yoruba
Razib23andMe 11% 3% 8% 4% 1% 0% 1% 73% 1%
RazibAncestry 10% 2% 8% 4% 1% 0% 1% 73% 1%
RazibFTDNA 11% 2% 8% 3% 1% 0% 1% 72% 1%
  Dai Druze German Japanese Papuan Sardinian Surui Tamil  
Razib23andMe 11% 3% 8% 4% 1% 0% 1% 73%  
RazibAncestry 10% 3% 8% 4% 1% 0% 1% 74%  
RazibFTDNA 11% 3% 8% 3% 1% 0% 1% 73%  
  Dai Druze Japanese Papuan Surui Tamil      
Razib23andMe 10% 9% 4% 1% 1% 74%      
RazibAncestry 10% 9% 4% 1% 1% 75%      
RazibFTDNA 11% 9% 4% 1% 1% 74%      
  Dai Japanese Surui Tamil          
Razib23andMe 11% 4% 1% 84%          
RazibAncestry 10% 4% 1% 85%          
RazibFTDNA 11% 3% 1% 84%        

Please observe again that they are broadly congruent. These methods exhibit a stochastic element, so there is some noise baked into the cake, but with 200,000+ markers and a robust number of reference populations the results come out the same across all methods (also, 23andMe and Family Tree DNA seem to correlate a bit more, which makes sense since these two genotypes are more similar to each other than they are to Ancestry).

Observe that until I remove all other West Eurasian populations the Tamil fraction in my putative ancestry is rather consistent. Why? Because my ancestry is mostly Tamil-like, but social and historical evidence would point to the likelihood of some exogenous Indo-Aryan component. Additionally, seeing as how very little of my ancestry could be modeled as West African removing that population had almost no impact.

When there were three West Eurasian populations, Germans, Druze, and Sardinians, the rank order was in that sequence. Removing Germans and Sardinians and the Druze picked up most of that ancestral component. This a supervised method, so I’m assigning the empirical populations as reified clusters which can be used to reconstitute the variation you see in my own genotype. No matter what I put into the reference data, the method tries its best to assign proportions to populations.

The question then comes into the stage of subtle choices one makes to obtain the most informative inferences for the customer. These are not always matters of different results in terms of accuracy or precision, but often of presentation. If West Eurasian populations are removed entirely, my Tamil fraction inflates. That’s the closest to the West Eurasian populations left in the data. In contrast, the East Asian fraction remains the same because I’ve left the two proxy populations in the data (I rigged the die here because I know I have Tibeto-Burman admixture which is a combination of Northeast and Southeast Asian).

Let’s do something different. I’m going to swap out the West Eurasian populations with equivalents.

  Armenians Dai French_Basque Japanese Mandenka Surui Sweden Tamil
Razib23andMe 6% 11% 0% 4% 1% 1% 5% 72%
RazibAncestry 5% 11% 0% 4% 1% 1% 5% 73%
RazibFTDNA 6% 11% 0% 4% 1% 1% 5% 72%
German Papuan Yoruba          
Razib23andMe 68% 20% 13%          
RazibAncestry 68% 20% 13%          
RazibFTDNA 68% 20% 13%          
French_Basque Tamil            
Razib23andMe 8% 92%            
RazibAncestry 7% 93%            
RazibFTDNA 8% 92%            
Tamil Yoruba            
Razib23andMe 97% 3%            
RazibAncestry 97% 3%            
RazibFTDNA 97% 3%          

I have no ancestry from French Basque, but I do have ancestry from Armenians and Swedes in this model. Why? If you keep track of the most recent population genomic ancestry this all makes sense. But if you don’t, well, it’s harder to unpack. This is part of the problem with these sorts of tests: how to make it comprehensible to the public while maintaining fidelity to the latest research.

This is not always easy, and differences between companies in terms of interpretation are not invidious as some of the press reports would have you think, but a matter of difficult choices and trade-offs one needs to make to give value to customers. True, this could all be ironed out if there was a ministry of genetic interpretation and a rectification of names in relation to population clusters, but right now there isn’t. This allows for both brand differentiation and engenders confusion.

In most of the models with a good number of populations, my Tamil ancestry is in the low 70s. Notice then that some of these results are relatively robust to the populations one specifies. Some of the patterns are so striking and clear that one would have to work really hard to iron them out and mask them in interpretation. But what happens when I remove Tamils and include populations I’m only distantly related to? This is a ridiculous model, but the algorithm tries its best. My affinity is greatest to Germans, both because of shared ancestry, and in the case of Papuans, their relatively high drift from other East Eurasians and Denisovan ancestry. But both Papuan and Yoruba ancestry are assigned because I’m clearly not 100% German, and I share alleles with both these populations. In models where there are not enough populations to “soak up” an individual’s variation, but you include Africans, it is not uncommon for African ancestry to show up at low fractions. If you take Europeans, Africans, and East Asians, and force two populations out of this mix, then Europeans are invariably modeled as a mix of Africans and East Asians, with greater affinity to the latter.

Even when you model my ancestry as Tamil or Yoruba, you see that there is a Yoruba residual. I have too much genetic variation that comes from groups not closely related to the variation you find in Tamils to eliminate this residual.

Just adding a few populations fixes this problem:

  Dai Tamil Yoruba  
Razib23andMe 14% 83% 2%  
RazibAncestry 14% 84% 2%  
RazibFTDNA 14% 83% 2%  
  Dai German Tamil Yoruba
Razib23andMe 15% 10% 74% 1%
RazibAncestry 14% 9% 75% 1%
RazibFTDNA 15% 10% 74% 1%

Notice how my Tamil fraction is almost the same as when I had included in many more reference populations. Why? My ancestral history is complex, like most humans, but it’s not that complex. The goal for public comprehensibility is to reduce the complexity into digestible units which give insight.

Of course, I could just say read Inference of Population Structure Using Multilocus Genotype Data. The basic framework was laid out in that paper 17 years ago for model-based clustering of the sort that is very common in direct to consumer services (some use machine learning and do local ancestry decomposition across the chromosome, but really the frameworks are an extension of the original logic). But that’s not feasible for most people, including journalists.

Consider this piece at Gizmodo, Why a DNA Test Is Actually a Really Bad Gift. I pretty much disagree with a lot of the privacy concerns, seeing as how I’ve had my public genotype downloadable for seven years. But this portion jumped out at me: “Ancestry tests are based on sound science, but variables in data sets and algorithms mean results are probabilities, not facts, as many people expect.”

Yes, there are probabilities involved. But if a DNA test using the number of markers above tells you you are 20% Sub-Saharan African and 80% European in ancestry, that probability is of the same sort of confidence of you determining that a coin flip is fair after 100,000 flips. True, you can’t be totally sure after 100,000 flips that you have a fair coin, but you can be pretty confident. With hundreds of thousands of markers, a quantum of 20% Sub-Saharan African in a person of predominantly European heritage is an inference made with a degree of confidence that verges upon certitude within a percentage or so.

As for the idea that they are not “facts.” I don’t even know what that means in this context. And I doubt the journalist does either. Which is one of my main gripes with these sorts of stories: unless they talk to a small subset of scientists the journalists just don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to the statistical genetics.

Finally, there is the issue about what does it even mean to be % percent of population X, Y, or Z? Even many biologists routinely reify and confuse the population clusters with something real and concrete in a Platonic sense. But deep down when you think about it we all need to recall we’re collapsing genealogies of many different segments of DNA into broad coarse summaries when we say “population.” And populations themselves are by their nature often somewhat open and subject to blending and flow with others. A population genomic understanding of structure does not bring into clarity Platonic facts, but it gives one instruments and tools to smoke out historical insight.

The truth, in this case, is not a thing in and of itself, but a dynamic which refines our intuitions of a fundamentally alien process of Mendelian assortment and segregation.