I feel I have to say that genetic genealogy's proper *academic* home is anthropology (if one is a four field anthropologist - which not all programs are). That's because we have to take and pass graduate courses and exams on both kinship (including every form of genealogy under the sun - because people's statements about their ancestry are one thing; their genes are another) and genes. We take graduate level courses in both topics (when I was in school, we had more units in kinship than in genetics - which is why I do go around calling myself a genetic genealogy "expert." Bill Durham is and was a genetic genealogy expert. Luca Cavalli-Sforza and Spencer Wells are genetic genealogy experts. To the extent that I have carefully studied under them or with them, I have some expertise (and have written affidavits, but *never* without objectivity, never just in favor of one side - Judges are sometimes the ones doing the asking but a good criminal defense attorney wants objective truth, not oddball challenges based on "I heard someone somewhere made a mistake.")
None of my affidavits, though, were on genetic genealogy (although I have assisted many, many people in doing their own GG work - and teach basic techniques in my own lab; using computers, obviously).
This is my professional opinion, though (note the word opinion). Genes are facts and if, for example, I had 600,000 SNP's from Bryan Kohberger in a data file and could look at them (one from his buccal swab; one from the sheath), I could offer what are basically facts (legal and biological). Not opinion. Genes are not theoretical. And that's why we define things carefully in science. There are laws of reproduction, just as there are laws of motion.
IMPO.
And now an opinion:
that new GG person the defense is using is not an expert. That indeed is JMO.
www.courttv.com
