↓ Skip to main content

Genetic Genealogy: The Woodson Family's Experience

Overview of attention for article published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, June 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
Title
Genetic Genealogy: The Woodson Family's Experience
Published in
Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, June 2005
DOI 10.1007/s11013-005-7426-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sloan R. Williams

Abstract

In 1998, Foster and colleagues published the results of a genetic study intended to test whether Thomas Jefferson could have fathered any of Sally Hemings' children. They found that the Jefferson Y chromosome haplotype matched that of a descendant of Hemings' youngest child, but not that of the descendants of the eldest son, Thomas Woodson. The Woodson descendants were shocked by the study's finding, which disagreed with their family oral history. They were suspicious of the study conclusions because of the methods used in recruiting participants for the study and the manner in which they learned of the results. The Woodsons' experience as participants in one of the first examples of genetic genealogy illustrates several issues that both geneticists and amateur genetic genealogists will face in studies of this kind. Misperceptions about the relationship between biology and race, and group genetics in general, can make the interpretation of genetic data difficult. Continuing collaborations between the media and the scientific community will help the public to better understand the risks as well as the benefits of genetic genealogy. Researchers must decide prior to beginning their research what role the human subjects will play in the study and when they will be notified of the study's conclusions. Amateur genetic genealogists should anticipate unexpected outcomes, such as the identification of nonpaternity, to minimize any harmful effects to study participants. Although modern genetic methods provide a powerful new tool for genealogical study, they cannot resolve all genealogical issues, as this study shows, and can involve unanticipated risks to the participants.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iceland 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 27 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 28%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 31%
Social Sciences 6 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 3 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,675,472
of 24,155,398 outputs
Outputs from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#162
of 623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,453
of 59,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,155,398 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 623 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 59,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them