“Warren might even be less Native American than the average European American.”
— President Trump, in a tweet, Oct. 16
After being egged on by President Trump, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released the results of a DNA test Oct. 15 that indicated that she had a Native American ancestor.
The results — which identified Native American DNA from six to 10 generations ago — were immediately misinterpreted.
It started with a Boston Globe report, which initially indicated that the test showed she was at best 1/32nd Native American and possibly just 1/512th Native American. After confessing twice to a math error, the Globe corrected the numbers to 1/64th and 1/1024th Native American. That would translate to between 98.44 percent and 99.9 percent not Native American.
The RNC then issued a news release directing reporters to a 2014 New York Times report that said “European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American.” So it sounded like Warren had less Native American DNA than the average European-American.
We even issued a tweet along these lines (at a moment when the Globe still indicated the range was between 1/32nd and 1/1024th):
But it turns out reporters and politicians are not very good at understanding genetics. So we will set the record straight, after reviewing the results in detail and consulting with genetics experts.
Warren’s DNA was sequenced and analyzed by a group led by Carlos Bustamante, a well-regarded Stanford University geneticist. Researchers studied a fraction — far less than 1/1000th — of Warren’s DNA, and then compared it to the DNA of 148 people from Finland, Italy, Spain, China, Nigeria and North and South America. Additional comparison was done with 185 individuals from Utah and Great Britain.
As one might expect, the vast majority of Warren’s DNA — 95 percent — indicated European ancestors. But five genetic segments were identified, with 99 percent confidence, as being associated with Native American ancestry. The largest segment identified was on Chromosome 10.
“While the vast majority of the individual’s ancestry is European, the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual’s pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago,” the report said.
Here’s where the reporting went off course. The report said that Warren had 10 times more Native American ancestry than the reference set from Utah, and 12 times more than the set from Britain. The report also said that the long segment on Chromosome 10 indicated that the DNA came from a relatively recent ancestor.
Those are significant findings. But reporters focused on the language indicating a range of between the sixth to 10th generation. That raised the prospect of an ancestor amid hundreds of great-great-great-etc.-grandparents. The image below of eight generations (256 ancestors), via the UC Davis genetics lab, indicates how the generations quickly expand (red is for female and blue is for male). It shows an even distribution, with each successive ancestor contributing equally to the DNA of an individual.
But ancestors do not contribute genetic material equally over time. Here’s the image of 11 generations of ancestors by genetic material they contributed to a particular individual. Some ancestors contribute a lot — while others nothing at all. In other words, as you go back in time, the number of your ancestors keeps increasing but not nearly as fast as the number of genealogical ancestors. Look closely at the sixth generation, and you will see some strong contributors of genetic material — and many weak ones.
The most important point is this: The results in Warren’s DNA test are static. The percentage of Native American DNA in her genome does not shrink as you go back generations. There could be one individual in the sixth generation — living around the mid-1800s, which is similar to Warren family lore — or possibly a dozen or more ancestors back to the 10th generation, which would be about 250 years ago. Her results are consistent with a single ancestor, however.
(Note: Bustamante did not have access to Native American DNA because of mistrust in the community that DNA results could affect tribal identity, so he relied on samples of indigenous people from Mexico, Peru and Colombia — populations in the Americas with high native American genetic ancestry. There is research showing that using these groups as references is accurate when differentiating between genetic ancestries at a worldwide level. But no tribe for Warren could be identified, only that she had an ancestor or ancestors descended from indigenous people.)
This basic error in understanding the test results was compounded by the RNC’s reference to the 2014 New York Times article, which was about a genetic profile of the United States, based on a study of 160,000 people drawn from the customer base of 23andMe, a consumer personal genetics company. With reporters believing that Warren’s genome was only as little as 0.01 percent Native American*, the article’s line that “European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American” made it appear as if Warren’s sample was even smaller than that of the average American. (*Note: an earlier version of this article mistakenly referred to the high end of range, 1.56 percent.)
Not so. Remember we said that the Bustamante study said she had 10 times more than the individuals from Utah? That’s the relevant statistic, indicating that her claim to some Native American heritage is much stronger than most European Americans.
In fact, the 23andMe study used a different methodology, so it cannot be compared to the Bustamante report. Moreover, the reference to an average “European-American” is misleading, because there are wide variations in the genetic makeup, with the vast majority of European Americans having no Native American ancestry. The small percentage of European Americans with more than two percent Native American ancestry are concentrated in a handful of states, such as North Dakota, New Mexico and Louisiana. But the majority of European Americans in the study have zero.
Mike Reed, the RNC spokesman who circulated the Times article, said in response: “The bottom line is Elizabeth Warren has, at most, a minuscule amount of Native American heritage and it is obvious she had absolutely no right to claim minority status while climbing the professional ladder to the Ivy League.”
The test results certainly have not won fans in the indigenous community.
Kim TallBear, associate professor at the University of Alberta, said the “very desire to locate a claim to Native American identity in a DNA marker inherited from a long-ago ancestor is a settler-colonial racial understanding of what it is to be Native American.” In an email, TallBear said that Native Americans' own definitions of legitimate Native American or tribal identity focus not on long-ago ancestors identified through a test but are based on a living community: “close social and biological relations of people one can name, indeed people one probably knows (huge LOL here) — one’s family, community, and tribe.”
The Pinocchio Test
We are not trying to defend Warren’s decision to release the test, just to set the record straight about what the test shows. The media bungled the interpretation of the results — and then Warren’s opponents used the uninformed reporting to undermine the test results even further. We fell into this trap as well, and were too quick to send out a tweet (now deleted) that made an inaccurate comparison. We should have not relied on media reporting before tweeting.
Warren’s Native American DNA, as identified in the test, may not be large, but it’s wrong to say it’s as little as 1/1024th or that it’s less than the average European American. Three Pinocchios all around — including to our tweet.
Send us facts to check by filling out this form
Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter
The Fact Checker is a verified signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network code of principles