Race is still irrelevant.
Partly, what plagued DNAPrint Genomics for the past 10 years, was the article of faith (delved into by the recent NPR Radiolab program,) that there is absolutely zero biological basis for race, and (by extension) that genetic tests cannot yield much, if any, data about racial ancestry.
Forensic investigations have no specific interest in 'race'. That is a strawman argument. Forensic investigations are looking for physiological identifying characteristics. Hair color, skin color, eye color etc. They are trying to determine what a suspect looks like. If they can determine he/she has light or dark skin, blond brown red or black hair, brown blue green eyes, that is what they want. They have no interest in categorizing those results into your imaginary obstacle. You can call it biogeographical heritage or you can call it race or you can suggest that those are invalid categories, it doesn't matter. It never has.
There is a specific biological basis for skin color, no one has ever disputed it. There is a biological basis for hair color, no one has ever disputed it. There is a biological basis for eye color, no one has ever disputed it. To suggest that 'political correctiveness' has presented obstacles between DNAG and the forensic market is ludicrous.
regards,
frog
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
