Emma Anne <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote: Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote: That's true, though the 30% figure is in a selected sample (of those who for some reason asked for DNA test). I don't think the percentage (of children, not the cheating wives!) is as high as that in the general population. Nonetheless, high enough to shatter the myth that women are more faithful than men. Actually, if it is based upon DNA testing, it's such a biased sample that I don't think any conclusions can be drawn. What percentage of people ever have their kids DNA tested? One percent, maybe? And it;s the ones who have reason to doubt.

Assuming it's based on elective DNA testing, it's a very biases/
self-selected sample. You could, however, do a scientific study by
identifying children out of a general population _at random_ and then trying
to (A) identify the parents, and (B) get consent to do the DNA paternity
testing.

Marcus Ulpius Traianus <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote:
Emma Anne <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote: Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote: That's true, though the 30% figure is in a selected sample (of those who for some reason asked for DNA test). I don't think the percentage (of children, not the cheating wives!) is as high as that in the general population. Nonetheless, high enough to shatter the myth that women are more faithful than men. Actually, if it is based upon DNA testing, it's such a biased sample that I don't think any conclusions can be drawn. What percentage of people ever have their kids DNA tested? One percent, maybe? And it;s the ones who have reason to doubt. Assuming it's based on elective DNA testing, it's a very biases/ self-selected sample. You could, however, do a scientific study by identifying children out of a general population _at random_ and then trying to (A) identify the parents, and (B) get consent to do the DNA paternity testing.

Agreed. I don't think this research has been done, however.

Emma Anne <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote: Marcus Ulpius Traianus <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote: Assuming it's based on elective DNA testing, it's a very biases/ self-selected sample. You could, however, do a scientific study by identifying children out of a general population _at random_ and then trying to (A) identify the parents, and (B) get consent to do the DNA paternity testing. Agreed. I don't think this research has been done, however.

I don't believe it's been done either.

I've also got my doubts about whether you could get enough randomly selected
parents to consent... or, if you made results known to those parents, the
fraction (likely well smaller than the 30% reported by elective DNA testing
studies) who DID get surprise bad news might well be prone to lawsuit or
worse.

But it would be interesting, if you could do it.

trajan@sfchat.org (Marcus Ulpius Traianus) wrote in message news:<udsf81-hqe.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>... Emma Anne <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote: Marcus Ulpius Traianus <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote: Assuming it's based on elective DNA testing, it's a very biases/ self-selected sample. You could, however, do a scientific study by identifying children out of a general population _at random_ and then trying to (A) identify the parents, and (B) get consent to do the DNA paternity testing. Agreed. I don't think this research has been done, however. I don't believe it's been done either. I've also got my doubts about whether you could get enough randomly selected parents to consent... or, if you made results known to those parents, the fraction (likely well smaller than the 30% reported by elective DNA testing studies) who DID get surprise bad news might well be prone to lawsuit or worse. But it would be interesting, if you could do it.

Kinda related, but don't they now routinely test the HIV status of
newborns, as a blind study to determine rate of infection? Surely if
there was some benefit, the gov't could institute routine blind DNA
testing to study this. But I don't see any benefit.

jen

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes:
trajan@sfchat.org (Marcus Ulpius Traianus) wrote in message news:<udsf81-hqe.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>... Emma Anne <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote: Marcus Ulpius Traianus <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote: > Assuming it's based on elective DNA testing, it's a very biases/ > self-selected sample. You could, however, do a scientific study by > identifying children out of a general population _at random_ and then > trying to (A) identify the parents, and (B) get consent to do the DNA > paternity testing. Agreed. I don't think this research has been done, however. I don't believe it's been done either. I've also got my doubts about whether you could get enough randomly selected parents to consent... or, if you made results known to those parents, the fraction (likely well smaller than the 30% reported by elective DNA testing studies) who DID get surprise bad news might well be prone to lawsuit or worse. But it would be interesting, if you could do it. Kinda related, but don't they now routinely test the HIV status of newborns, as a blind study to determine rate of infection?

They don't do this actually. (At least in the U.S. they don't.) It
would be a fairly expensive study! They _do_ routinely check the HIV
status of pregnant women though (of course this is also expensive, but
it comes out of the individual women's pockets or their individual
insurance company's pockets, so the cost of this is broken up a bit).
Surely if there was some benefit, the gov't could institute routine blind DNA testing to study this. But I don't see any benefit.

Neither do I. Although in my case I can be pretty certain just from
_looking_ at my kids that if I'm not the father, it must have been my
evil twin. But additionally, finding out I wasn't the biological dad
wouldn't affect my relationship with my kids (though it would probably
affect my relationship with my wife).