Plenty of too-cool-for-school cynics in the Comments, who think they're "agreeing" with Prof Thomas.
Although your fellow-commenter "imipak" (who if it is who I suspect it is, is no lightweight) also puts up a good defence against what on the surface (due to it's being couched in somewhat oblique terms) sounds like a wholesale ex cathedra
condemnation of amateur, "extracurricular" genetic testing.
'Leave it to the grown-ups, we'll tell you what's what' is very much the tone from Thomas.
So not very useful for most people? No, although those records ARE useful to scientists, et al. So if you want to buy a DNA test and don't understand what it means, you are really buying it for science. Which is fine, it isn't like the government is buying anything for science any more
There is a major difference - one side of this debate isn't trying to sell you anything.
I respectfully yet insolently wish to disagree on that. "One side of this debate" wants the other to STFU, as they're both likely feeling the pecuniary pinch in these Hard Times, and the "amateurs" have been kicking seven shades out of the tenured tribe on the research front since I don't know when. Maybe the Deans and Vice-Chancellors have noticed, and wondering if they could save a few bob?
And until the "proper" scientists get their history, archaeology and even paleontology up to snuff, their attempts to link their findings to past events are condemned to remain absolutely toe-curlingly
embarrassing and next-to-worthless as explanatory mechanisms of the human past. They just don't seem able
to understand the concepts of time or place, sequences or consequences. Full of lacunae and anachronisms.
And then there's Oppenheimer's stuff. Ye gods. Yet he was taken seriously by "proper scientists".
Thanks mate, I'm bloody fuming now :D
Off round to the shed to bash things and have a guinness till I calm down lol.