But if the results are generally unreliable, everything is open to one's own interpretation. In the article, they quote an genealogy expert who says the scienc

But if the results are generally unreliable, everything is open to one's own interpretation. In the article, they quote an genealogy expert who says the science is "murky": >J. Scott Roberts, an associate professor at the University of Michigan, who has studied consumer use of genetic tests and was not involved with the study, said the companies tend to be reliable at identifying genetic variants. Interpreting them in terms of health risk or ancestry, though, is another story. “The science is often murky in those areas and gives ambiguous information,” he said. “They try to give specific percentages from this region, or x percent disease risk, and my sense is that that is an artificially precise estimate.” I assume you're comfortable with the idea that you're descended from a slave and thus have chosen to override prior evidence to the contrary. But if you weren't comfortable with the idea, you can say the test is flawed and have just as powerful an argument. Unless 23andMe can show statistical rigor behind their methods, everyone is going to see what they want in the results.