Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, October 22, 2007 | Science : Genetics | print version Print | Comments

Document Cheney and Obama: It's Not Genetic

by Nicholas Wade

Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/weekinreview/21basic.html?ref=science

Two curious political relationships of Senator Barack Obama came to light last month in The Chicago Sun-Times: he is an 11th cousin to President Bush, and a 9th cousin once removed to Vice President Dick Cheney. The Bush-Obama ancestors are Samuel and Sarah Soole Hinckley of 17th-century Massachusetts, The Sun-Times wrote; the Cheney-Obama ancestors are Mareen and Susannah Duvall, 17th-century immigrants from France.

The story sent new ripples through the political world last week when Lynne Cheney repeated Mr. Obama's link with her husband in a television interview promoting her new book. It's not as if Mr. Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were found to be identical twins separated at birth; still, the genealogy was incongruous.

But the Bush-Obama-Cheney nexus means rather less than it may seem. Conventional genealogies conceal how rapidly genes get diluted down the generations. You inherit directly only half of your father's genes, a quarter of each grandfather's, an eighth of any great-grandfather's. And with ancestors much further back, you may share no more genes than you do with a random stranger met in Times Square.

That may be why many people cannot trace their family tree very far back: perhaps intuitively, they realize they don't share much, genetically speaking, with those distant forebears.

Tracing ancestry through the father's surname, a surrogate for the Y chromosome, may seem absurd given that the Y carries just 70 of the 25,000 or so genes in the human genome. But the compilers of Burke's Peerage could be engaged in a quest less ludicrous than it might sound. In in-bred populations like Europe's nobility, just as in isolated villages, everyone dips from the same little gene pool. In such cases, you inherit only half of your father's genes directly, but of the half that got left on the cutting-room floor, some may have come to you via your mother, who shared them with your father via a joint ancestor.

But in out-bred populations, like that of the United States, where people generally marry people who are not related to them in any known way, genes get diluted really fast. Mr. Obama probably inherited a minute fraction — one divided by two to the 11th power — of Mareen Duvall's genome, which would amount to less than one gene, assuming the Y chromosome was not inherited. Much the same would be true of Mr. Cheney. The chance that they inherited the same one gene is vanishingly small. So the fact of their genealogical relationship, whatever its political symbolism, is genetically meaningless.

Comments 1 - 23 of 23 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #80579 by Matt7895 on October 22, 2007 at 8:06 am

 avatarDoes anyone know what Obama's viewpoints are on atheism and on evolution?

Other Comments by Matt7895

2. Comment #80584 by bradpitcher on October 22, 2007 at 8:32 am

 avataraccording to the godometer (http://blog.beliefnet.com/godometer/)
he's a theocrat

Other Comments by bradpitcher

3. Comment #80589 by jimmm33 on October 22, 2007 at 9:17 am

Bla bla bla genetics bla bla bla...

We all realize that Mareen and Susannah Duvall, 17th-century immigrants from France have thousands of decendants all over the world.

It's is still interesting.

What is the point of the article?

BTW, I read that Obama's momma was atheist.

Other Comments by jimmm33

4. Comment #80594 by konquererz on October 22, 2007 at 9:48 am

 avatarI am so tired of all these politicians saying "separation of church and state" then clinging to the god ticket! If a single candidate came out as atheist, they would have my vote just for having the balls!

Other Comments by konquererz

5. Comment #80597 by pwl on October 22, 2007 at 9:52 am

from what I remember from reading 'the selfish gene' am I right in thinking that although someone gets half of our genes from our father we dont necessarily get a quarter of our genes from his father, or any of our other grandparents?

Other Comments by pwl

6. Comment #80601 by joekoz451 on October 22, 2007 at 9:58 am

If a single candidate came out as atheist, they would have my vote just for having the balls!


Amen!

Other Comments by joekoz451

7. Comment #80607 by robotaholic on October 22, 2007 at 10:14 am

 avataramen to balls!

Other Comments by robotaholic

8. Comment #80623 by LoneStarTravis on October 22, 2007 at 11:02 am

Obama seems to be a religious person, but he did say that he preferred an evidence-based view of the world than a faith-based view of the world.

Other Comments by LoneStarTravis

9. Comment #80626 by Pallinn on October 22, 2007 at 11:09 am

 avatar"You inherit directly only half of your father's genes, a quarter of each grandfather's, an eighth of any great-grandfather's."

If I remember my Ancestor's Tale correctly, that sentence is complete and utter nonsense. You inherit exactly half of your father's genes, certainly, but the odds against getting exactly a quarter of each grandfather's genes are astronomical. If that was actually the rule (regarding each of your grandparents), all your kids would have the exact same genome wouldn't they?

You will most likely have approximately a quarter, but it is also statistically conceiveable that you aren't related to your paternal-grandfather at all (genetically speaking)!

Other Comments by Pallinn

10. Comment #80629 by epeeist on October 22, 2007 at 11:33 am

 avatarComment #80626 by Pallinn

If I remember my Ancestor's Tale correctly, that sentence is complete and utter nonsense. You inherit exactly half of your father's genes, certainly, but the odds against getting exactly a quarter of each grandfather's genes are astronomical.

Especially as it is rather difficult to guarantee that you grandfathers were actually your grandmothers husbands.

Other Comments by epeeist

11. Comment #80651 by Pete_C on October 22, 2007 at 1:49 pm

The odds of someone being completely unrelated to her paternal-grandfather are quite long. She would have to have been produced from a sperm that carried only non-crossover chromosomes from her paternal grandmother. She obviously gets the X, so that leaves 22 more chromosomes. There's almost always at least one crossover per chromosome pair; we'll simplify and say there was one and only one. So in each pair of chromosomes there are two crossover and two non-crossover chromatids, and for each of these, one is paternal and one maternal. Only one out of the four chromatids is the maternal non-crossover chromatid. So the odds of an X-bearing sperm being produced that lacks all the DNA from the man's father is at best 1 in 4 to the 22nd power, or 1 in 17,592,186,044,416 (the odds are even worse if more crossovers are allowed.)

Other Comments by Pete_C

12. Comment #80658 by the izz on October 22, 2007 at 2:16 pm

 avatarOh, who cares. 9th and 11th cousins! That is very distantly related. It only seems slightly significant because the rest of the political candidates haven't had their ancestors traced back to Bush and Cheney. I'm sure most of them would also be related by similar margins. Funny how people are surprised that anyone with brown skin could possibly be related to anyone with tan skin even in a small way.

Other Comments by the izz

13. Comment #80670 by hughlomas on October 22, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Obama may be cultivating support with religion, support which he will need to have any chance at winning, but his statements portray him as a secularist.

Other Comments by hughlomas

14. Comment #80700 by sornord on October 22, 2007 at 4:58 pm

Perhaps those more knowledgeable in genetics than I am can verify but I recall reading some years ago that at third cousins and beyond a random stranger's DNA will usually show just as much "family relation" to yours...or something like that.

So at the distances discussed here, just about anyone could be related to anyone else?

Other Comments by sornord

15. Comment #80703 by hughlomas on October 22, 2007 at 5:20 pm

everyone is related to everyone else by some degree

Other Comments by hughlomas

16. Comment #80710 by Frankus1122 on October 22, 2007 at 6:16 pm

 avatar
everyone is related to everyone else by some degree


2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,... etc.

64 generations of non-related individuals would give us this number:

18,446,744,073,709,551,615.

That many people have not existed.
Therefore we are all related in some way.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

17. Comment #80730 by Pallinn on October 22, 2007 at 8:39 pm

 avatarWell, I had thought that by saying it was "statistically conceivable" I was making it clear that it was just an academic point =)

With that said, even if you weren't a genetic descendant of your grandfather, his existence would of course still be a prerequisite for your existence. So you'd presumably still want to send him a card for christmas.

Other Comments by Pallinn

18. Comment #80762 by Nefrubyr on October 23, 2007 at 2:12 am

 avatarWhat an utterly pointless article. So Obama is one of thousands of people who can claim to be an umpteenth cousin of Bush? I wonder who else they'll find in the entire government.

So Obama is related to Cheney and Bush? Who cares? Monarchists? It's about each person's views and policies, not his coat of arms.

So they don't share many genes after all? If anyone thinks common genes would make them in any way similar, I suggest they find out about two brothers named "Hitchens".

That may be why many people cannot trace their family tree very far back: perhaps intuitively, they realize they don't share much, genetically speaking, with those distant forebears.

Oh, I hadn't realised that people intuitively let genetic similarity influence their genealogical research. There was me thinking that several hundred year old birth certificates were hard to find. I hadn't realised that people took their family trees so personally.

Other Comments by Nefrubyr

19. Comment #80839 by notsobad on October 23, 2007 at 7:19 am

 avatarWe are all related to everything alive on this planet, more so if there even was a creator.
Ironically, it's the theists that often act like they are superior to all other forms of life.

Other Comments by notsobad

20. Comment #80988 by MIND_REBEL on October 23, 2007 at 8:40 pm

 avatarObama is still a deluded theist and by any measure of still more religious than Cheney. I wish non-believers had a viable candidate to vote for and support.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

21. Comment #81089 by bluebird on October 24, 2007 at 3:40 am

 avatarMIND_REBEL, our oldest son gets to vote for the first time in '08; he's finding it difficult to pick a "favorite" (as are we!).

Also, welcome back :)

Other Comments by bluebird

22. Comment #83307 by mejdrich on October 29, 2007 at 3:12 pm

Anyone guess why the Cheneys made this public, in the first place?

My guess is that since Cheney is so unpopular, the chance to link him, in any way, to a Democratic front-runner was seen as a good political move. Otherwise, I'm baffled.

Any thoughts?

Other Comments by mejdrich

23. Comment #107660 by the_ultimate_samurai on January 4, 2008 at 11:40 pm

hmm, one thing im most curious about in terms of geneology, mitochondrial DNA is never mixed to my knowlege. first off...how OLD is that DNA? mitochondrial DNA moves unchanged from mother to daughter or mother to son, the father makes no contribution to that. how far back does this DNA go? what forces apply to it? can it be mines for anthrolpological evidence?

also, yes...third cousins are pretty much unrelated genetically speaking, many find offense to cousins having romantic relationships though, however it is legal in many countries (including japan) and some states in the US.

but unless there is an evil gene, i dont think we need to worry about a genetic relationship between cheney and obama (though perhaps a memetic relationship could exist...but thats doubtful)

actually you would think this would look bad for bush, this means he is part french, something they should consider turning back on them (no offense to french people, i say that only because he had done so much to denegrade the french, including changing the name of french fries...)

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
letters@nytimes.com