The question about DNA Dating that bothers me most is what happens to my genetically identity at the end of the day - especially when we are talking about such a dubious company like Genepartner.
There are a few things fishy about Genepartner:
- The so called “Swiss Institute for Behavioural Genetics” (www.sibeg.org) – where Genepartner’s research studies are supposed to be done – belongs to the former Marketing Manager of Genepartner Michael von Arx (e.g. check www.sibeg.org at http://whois.domaintools.com)?! However, if you google the institute it hardly doesn’t exist besides Geneparnter related sites. Moreover, Websheep (www.websheep.com), the company that programmed Genepartner’s website also programmed sibeg.
- Another thing that makes me suspicious: Nobody ever saw any data of Genepartner’s research studies (Check TimesOnline article from May 24, 2009, http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/ar...).
So, why should we hand our genetically identity out to such a dubious company?!
I don't doubt that there is some merit to this, but it just seems to take away from an individuals growth from outer stimuli...ie, relationships between family and friends, environmental impacts (as in the social environment for where you were raised or grew up), and our own abilities to choose what we want for ourselves and work towards that goal. So much of that seems, to me, beyond the ability of science to explain in these terms.
Perhaps I am attracted to women that are opposites of me chemically as the research suggests, but my attraction towards them tends to be solidified by who they are as a person based on their history, the decisions they've made, and the life they actively choose to live. Perhaps its just that those are the traits that endear us to on another but that chemical responses bring us together in the first place?
Why not? So long as you checked that they're using good science before you fork over $100.
I want a company that tests for the "infidelity gene," or as Gene Weingarten put it the "jackass gene."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080902161213.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/31/AR200810...



