Require a short, machine‑readable provenance statement whenever polygenic score results are presented from ancient DNA or cross‑population comparisons: list GWAS training ancestry, SNP ascertainment, imputation/coverage limits, temporal bins, validation checks (e.g., known clines), and sensitivity to population structure. Publish the raw allele counts and the robustness map alongside claims.
— Standardising provenance for ancient‑DNA and PGS claims would reduce politically explosive misinterpretations about ancestry, intelligence, and selection and make policy debates evidence‑anchored rather than rhetoric‑driven.
Davide Piffer
2026.01.15
82% relevant
The article is an applied case for a provenance standard: it documents how different computational choices (aligned one‑to‑one bases vs whole‑genome inclusion of indels, CNVs, repeats) yield vastly different similarity percentages, supporting the existing idea that genetic claims must carry machine‑readable provenance describing exactly what was measured.
Davide Piffer
2026.01.12
100% relevant
The article documents how ancestry plots, Mendelian simplifications, and polygenic score time‑series are routinely conflated; a provenance standard would directly counter the operational failures Piffer illustrates.
← Back to All Ideas