http://www.ajc.com/living/content/living/relationships/12paternity.html
Paternity studies reveal 4 percent of dads have been fooled

By BILL HENDRICK
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 08/12/05

"Who's your daddy" is a question more fathers are bound to ask now that British scientists have reported that at least 4 percent of dads are raising another man's child without knowing it.

Their research, published in the prestigious Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, was based on recent DNA testing, intended in part to answer increasing questions from fathers who wonder whether children they think are theirs could have been sired by others.

Conclusions also were based on scores of paternity studies and surveys done between 1950 and 2004.

The chief investigator, Mark Bellis, a professor at the Center for Public Health in Liverpool, England, said in an interview Thursday that paternity testing is important, but not just to find out if a child is who he's thought to be. DNA testing has advanced to the degree that it can provide information that could potentially save lives, he said, such as pinpointing genetic flaws that cause disease.

Bellis said that among men in developed countries who seek DNA tests to establish if they're really the dads of their children, the suspicions of 25 percent prove to be correct.

"Quite clearly, paternal discrepancy is an issue in developed countries," he said. "One of four people who suspect they're the fathers and do the testing aren't the daddies.

"The implications are huge," he added. "This affects far more people than previously thought. We don't know if it's a good thing to be informed or not. Should [those involved] be told? What effect would that have?"

He said few physicians would be eager to get involved in such issues.

DNA testing, besides revealing paternity and genetic information, also is helpful when dealing with organ transplants and the likelihood of children developing heritable diseases, Bellis said.

In the United States, paternity testing has soared, more than doubling since 1991, reflecting rising suspicions among dads. Many states, including Georgia, have passed laws allowing DNA testing to be used to establish paternity and fatherly financial responsibilities.

"In a society where services and life decisions are increasingly influenced by genetics, our approach to paternal discrepancy cannot be simply to ignore this difficult issue," said Bellis and co-authors Karen Hughes, Sara Hughes and John Ashton.

Bellis said that "increasing use of genetic testing for diagnosis, treatment and identification is likely to boost the rates of paternal discrepancy, making the need to understand the true prevalence even more pressing."

The authors said that exposing paternal discrepancy could lead to family violence and divorce. However, leaving paternal discrepancy hidden means many people are ill-informed about their medical histories, which could have public-health consequences.

The study also showed that becoming pregnant at a younger age, being poor or being in a long-term relationship, rather than being married, seemed to be linked to a greater likelihood of paternal discrepancy.

Bellis said that soaring rates of paternity testing in the United States and Europe almost certainly mean that more cases of paternal discrepancy will be identified in the years ahead.

The Georgia General Assembly passed a paternity fraud statute in 2002 allowing men to go to court to have DNA tests done to determine whether a child is theirs. Under the law, men who find they're not the father of a child are relieved of responsibility for the youngster, according to the Department of Human Resources.

The paternity issue comes up frequently, and it's estimated that among married folks, one in 10 paternity tests determine that the father who thinks a child is his is wrong, according to officials.

The DNA testing business is growing rapidly, with little regulation.

I read in a book that is about 10 years old, I think, that a scientist back in the 50s who was conducting research into something else (ie. NOT into the fathers were the real fathers) noticed that about 10% (again, I think) of the children were not those of the purported fathers.

Apparently, he was so horrified by what he'd discovered that he didn't reveal his findings - I gather it was discovered later, perhaps after he died. It didn't become a big story, but it looks like someone else has finally decided to look into this...

This article confuses me:

"at least 4 percent of dads are raising another man's child without knowing it"

"among men in developed countries who seek DNA tests to establish if they're really the dads of their children, the suspicions of 25 percent prove to be correct"

"it's estimated that among married folks, one in 10 paternity tests determine that the father who thinks a child is his is wrong,"

I know they are slightly different statements, but they confuse me - it's like some mensa quiz. If the married folks have 10% slut rate, and overall slut rate is ">4%", then does that mean that unmarried folks slut rate is *lower* than the married folks? What am I missing here?

The trick is that not all parents get paternity tests. I think.

The secnod two statements are, I think, only true of a subset of population; those who seek paternity tests.

This article confuses me:

"at least 4 percent of dads are raising another man's child without knowing it"

"among men in developed countries who seek DNA tests to establish if they're really the dads of their children, the suspicions of 25 percent prove to be correct"

"it's estimated that among married folks, one in 10 paternity tests determine that the father who thinks a child is his is wrong,"

I know they are slightly different statements, but they confuse me - it's like some mensa quiz. If the married folks have 10% slut rate, and overall slut rate is ">4%", then does that mean that unmarried folks slut rate is *lower* than the married folks? What am I missing here?


I take it to mean that overall, 25% of the tests determine that the alleged father is not the father. Of those tests, considering only those involving married people, 10% of alleged fathers are not, ie. lower than overall tested. These are only those that suspect or have some reason to have the test performed.

Finally, considering all people, including those who have no reason to suspect and don't have any testing, it's estimated that at least 4% of alleged fathers are not.

This has been theorized by evolutionary biologists and psychologists for years, I believe. It is an overlay of the basic "it is in the human male's interests to mate with as many partners as possible to ensure his genes are passed on, while it is in the human female's interest to find a stable (and genetically attractive) mate, to ensure that her offspring survive to reproductive age (i.e., so the genes get passed on).
The twist here, is that it may be in the female's interest to secretly mate with other males, since it acts as a hedge in case her main parter is a poor genetic choice. Of course, the mating has to remain secret, especially if the main male partner is a good provider, or the female loses the benefit of having a long-term male partner.

I take it to mean that overall, 25% of the tests determine that the alleged father is not the father. Of those tests, considering only those involving married people, 10% of alleged fathers are not, ie. lower than overall tested. These are only those that suspect or have some reason to have the test performed.

Finally, considering all people, including those who have no reason to suspect and don't have any testing, it's estimated that at least 4% of alleged fathers are not.

I think you read it the same way I read it (after some initial confusion for me too):

Men tested who were suspicious = 1 in 4 aren't the father.
Married men tested who were suspcious = 1 in 10 aren't the father.
All tested men, regardless of suspicion = 1 in 25 aren't the father.

I think you read it the same way I read it (after some initial confusion for me too):

Men tested who were suspicious = 1 in 4 aren't the father.
Married men tested who were suspcious = 1 in 10 aren't the father.
All tested men, regardless of suspicion = 1 in 25 aren't the father.

That seems like a weird way to go about it.

The way the article read, it was like they were trying to imply an epidemic of feminine unfaithfulness, but if the men who were suspicious are also part of the population of "all men tested," then what's really the case here? Doesn't that seem to anybody else to be a bit of statistical double-dipping?

That seems like a weird way to go about it.

The way the article read, it was like they were trying to imply an epidemic of feminine unfaithfulness, but if the men who were suspicious are also part of the population of "all men tested," then what's really the case here? Doesn't that seem to anybody else to be a bit of statistical double-dipping?

I don't think it's all that unusual, I read it as just a normal break down of results by sub-groups from the whole.

But to know for sure if there's a flaw here, wouldn't we need to know what the representation of the various sub-groups was within the whole?

I don't think it's all that unusual, I read it as just a normal break down of results by sub-groups from the whole.

But to know for sure if there's a flaw here, wouldn't we need to know what the representation of the various sub-groups was within the whole?

That's what I was thinking. We get a breakdown of 'suspicious' men, suspicious married men, and all men. What gets left out is men who aren't suspicious, and that's a fairly significant omission.

That's what I was thinking. We get a breakdown of 'suspicious' men, suspicious married men, and all men. What gets left out is men who aren't suspicious, and that's a fairly significant omission.

I found the full study, but I also ain't $12 worth of curious either.

Here's the full study (http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/58/11/894?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=paternity&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1124156434851_1657&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1,10&journalcode=jech)

Reading the BBC version of the same article, I think I may have caught on to why the numbers are presented in such an incomplete way. I believe this isn't so much a study itself, but rather a report that sort of complied the results of various studies over the past 50 years. I bet that 4% figure is more extrapolation than anything else, sort of hedged out of a ton of data of all sorts of more specifically targeted studies.