Who's your daddy?

To think, all of the jokes I cracked about my friends "being the milkman’s kids" over the years could actually be true! An recent scientific study has theorized that one in 25 children is not the product of their alleged father, but instead is the progeny of a different guy. They didn’t go into much detail about where the actual fathers were, but this is shocking. Think of how many of you know 25 guys with kids. If we are to believe these numbers then odds are at least one of them is raising someone else’s kids as their own. Think of how many kids you went to school with who don’t actually know their real dads. Think of how many people you work with who don’t know theirs.

In light of this new research, let's consider the bright side. It is now fairly likely that Tom Cruise is not actually the father of Katie Holmes' baby - even if they think it is! I don't know about you but this belief, as unlikely as it may be, provides me with just the right amount of necessary inner peace to proceed to ignore the whole thing entirely. Yup. I'm done. I've been just as aghast as the rest of America with respect to what has happened to America's latest sweetheart. But now that I know that the alleged child she is carrying is even remotely not hers I can finally sleep through the night. Hopefully, someone will pass this information along to Katie's dad, who is apparently none too pleased with an alien worshipper boinking his formerly Catholic little angel. Yes, Mr. Holmes, *none* of us think he's any good. But he's not the father of your grandchild...

probably...
most likely...
entirely possibly...
maybe.

Take your prozac and try to get some sleep Papa Holmes. Hopefully the Raelians will come and take him away before morning. Or he'll be distracted by something sparkly long enough for SWAT teams to move in and rescue her*. If worse comes to worst, just keep telling yourself that Tome Cruise is gay.

* OMG wouldn't that make the *best* movie? Starring Angelina Jolie in full tomb-raider regalia, Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, Agent Cody Banks, and Mr T's tour bus full of crime-fightin' rhythmic gymnasts. Gotta go work on a screenplay...

Comments

towwas said…
Allow me to rant about science writing: that article is total crap. (I mean, the news article, not the journal article it's written about.) The writers "settled on" four percent? That makes it sound like they pulled it out of their asses. From a brief glance at the abstract (http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/59/9/749), we learn that the authors reported that the median paternal discrepancy rate found in other studies is 3.7 percent. And who knows what populations those studies were done in.
towwas said…
P.S. I feel so sorry for Katie Holmes.
grrrbear said…
I was pretty certain that one of my science buddies would weigh in on this, and I was 90% sure that it would be you TOWWAS - shining the blinding light of truth and reason into science's dark and dangerous back alleys for us simple non-scientist folks.

I figured it was not entirely on the level. But I still choose to believe that the alleged baby is actually Pacey Witter's. Otherwise I'll stop sleeping at night.
Annie said…
I must say, I have read that the percentage of mistaken paternity is closer to 10%. AND you should ask J. Po - come on, J. Po! She's analyzed public health data where they have father-child DNA, and she confirms that a very surprising number of kids are not their fathers' children....
grrrbear said…
I wonder if these surveys accounted for the presence of Chimeras in their calculations? They may be their father's kids, but maybe his nads are not his own...ooooo...creepy.

Although it would give creedence to women's oft-cited "that thing has a mind of it's own" observations.
Stacey Pelika said…
Hmmm... I guess the next time I get someone who's all shocked that I don't know my dad, I can retort with a nice "Are you really sure you know yours?!?!"
ThatIsMeWhat said…
Tom cruise can shampoo my....oh never mind.
J.Po said…
Yea - non-parternity can realy f-up a perfectly sound genetic epidemiology study. My last job involved working with data on one of THE MOST sensitive genetic regions for establishing "genetic fingerprints" (immunological stuff that has obvious and strong evolutionary pressure for tons o' variation). I was always sad when I happened upon a "family" where pops wasn't actually pops. Yeesh. That's when you realize why there are things like masking of family names, etc.
towwas said…
Yeah, Grrbear, count on me to get pissy about bad science reporting. :) But you're a scientist, kind of, or a social scientist, in a former life, sorta.

It's a review article, so they say in the abstract that other studies have found rates from 0.8% to 30%. It totally depends on the population you're looking at, though - they say rates are higher among "those who conceive younger, live in deprivation, are in long term relationships (rather than marriages), or in certain cultural groups."

I'm kind of obsessed with study design. I figure it serves me well in my line of work.