Human Genetics

Spring 1999

Final Report from Circleville Middle School, Circleville, NY, USA
Final Report from Milford High School, Milford, Illinois, USA
Final Report from North Olmsted Middle School, North Olmstead, Ohio, USA
Final Report from Scarsdale Middle School, Scarsdale, NY, USA
Final Report from Lincoln Middle School, Passaic, NJ, USA
Final Report from Montgomery High School, Skillman, New Jersey, USA
Final Report from St. Thomas More, San Francisco, California, USA
Final Report from Frederick Douglas Elementary School, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

Final Report from Circleville Middle School, Circleville, New York, USA

Our class finished the Genetics project this week.This was a fun way to be introduced to genetics. We had some trouble with the project because we were not
completely sure how to clasify our thumbs. Maybe if there was more specific desription of the trait it would help. This was an important factor needed in the scientific
procedure so that we are all doing it the same way and so our results are valid.We think that is why the recessive curved thumb ended up being 66%. If we did it
again we would interview more people and try to be more clear on how to identify the traits. The results did not match all of our expectations. Most of us did not
know what a white forelock was and we were surprized to find out that 65% of us had this dominant trait. We analized our results by changing them to percents and
then made bar graphs so we could see the results. No one was color blind in our group, but we learned from our nurse that here are 3 color deficient boys in our
school of 1,000. It was interesting to learn that color blindness is a recessive trait that is also sex related so that mostly males would get it. We found out that true
color blindness is rare and that most people who have it have a color defiency with the red and green colors.100% had the dominant trait of normal color vision
while the lowest dominant traits were straight thumbs with 34% and dimples with 46%,which was interesting to us. Except for these two (dimples and thumbs), the
dominant traits occured more often in our results.This is what we expected after learning about Mendel's Laws.

Final Report from Milford High School, Milford, Illinois, USA

1. Was your class able to complete the project as it was designed? "Yes, other than color blindness. We did not have a color blind test."

2. What was the most important new idea or scientific procedure you learned by doing this project? "We learned that certain families have a variety. Just because a
trait is dominant, it does not mean it is a majority."

3. If someone asked you about the outcome of the project, how would you awnser? "Our awnsers were not what we expected."

4. If you had the chance to do this project again, what would you do differently? "We would ask more of a variety of people, and we would have the people come
and take the color blindness test."

5. If you could speak to the project leader, what suggestions for improvement would you offer? "We would suggest he makes it more known to different schools."

6. Did the results of your project match your expectations? "Some of the results did, but some didn't. We expected all dominant traits to be a majority."

7. What procedures did you use to analyze the large quantity of data? "We added them to get a percent."

8. What was the frequency range (highest% minus lowest%) of the dominant traits? "Our highest was 70%, and our lowest was 3.5%. There was a 66.5%
difference.

9. Is there a relationship between how often a trait occured and dominance? "No. For example with the white forelock, the recessive trait was far more common
than the dominant trait. But sometimes the dominant trait was more common."

10. What did you learn about the way red-green color blindness is inherited in humans? "It is a sex linked trait that is rarely expressed."

Final Report from North Olmsted Middle School, North Olmstead, Ohio, USA

Our class was able to complete as it was designed. When we surveyed the students we got 264 pieces of information, and they all added up equally. 25 out of the
26 students in our class collected information. Each of those 25 students collected at least 10 pieces of information. Some students got more. We had 14 extra
pieces of information. The information people collected ranged between 10 and 18 pieces. After we surveyed everyone, we collected the entire class' data and
submitted it to the site. At the site we checked i all the data currently on the site was correct. We found that two schools' data was wrong so we didn't use them
when we combined all the data to find the overall results. We used 18 schools with correct data to find our results. Even after a few problems which we stumbled
into, we still managed to do the project as it was designed without any changes.

The most important scientific procedure we learned by doing this project was collecting and compiling data. A new idea we learned is that just because a trait is
dominant doesn't necessarily mean it will always show more often than a recessive trait. For example, you may interview ten people for free and attached earlobes,
free being the dominant and attached being the recessive trait. Hoverer, eight of these people have attached earlobes, and oly two have the dominant trait of free
earlobes. Your must take into consideration the amount of data you collect. The few people you interviewed will not give you accurate information. The more data
you collect, the more accurate it is. Take, for example, this project we are doing. If you look at the information from all of the schools for free and attached earlobes
you would find that 63.8% of the people interviewed had free earlobes and that 36.2% had attached. So with more data, you see that the dominant trait occurs more
often in larger groups of people.

We were surprised with the outcome of the dimples, thumbs, white forlock, and mid-digit hair. The recessive traits appeared more often than the dominant one. The
only wish that we had was that we could have had more information to see if the dominant one would have lived up to the expectations of its dominance, but this
experiment has fulfilled its purpose

Basically, there was nothing wrong with the project, except for one little inconvenience. This annoying detail is that it is sometimes hard to distinguish a straight thumb
from a curved thumb, even with the example you had given us. Other than that, the project design was pretty good and we had little trouble.

About half of the results of the survey matched our expectations, but a few didn’t. Some statistics that were dominant like white forelock, came out less ofter than
predicted. Some other surveys, like bent thumb, came out that the dominant and the recessive genes come out about equal.

The procedures we used to add large quantities of data were, for the totals of the schools, a calculator on the computer and for the percentages we used a regular
hand-held calculatior.

We were very suprised to find that in four of the seven catagories surveyed, the recessive trait appeared more often than the dominant trait. Catefories favoring the
recessive trait are : white-forelock, having 62.2% more people not having it than having it; curved thumb having 5% more people with it than with the straight thumb;
dimples with 13% more people not having them than having them; and mid-digit hai with 9.6% more peolple not having it than having it. The other three traits favored
the dominant gene by the following amounts: free ear lobes occured 27.6% more than attached ear lobes; straight pinky 30.8% more than curved pinky; and not
having red-green colorblindness 92.6 percent more than having it.

There is a relationship between how often a trait occured and dominance often a trait occured and its dominance. The general relationship is that the dominant trait is
the trait that most often is present. The data for our area has many exceptions to this rule. In cases the data has proven, for a small area, that the recessive trait is
more likely present than the dominant. In the data we have observed that of the seven traits that we have compiled data on, four of the recessive traits appeared
more often than the dominant traits. For example, having a white forelock was a dominant trait and only 18.9% of the people surveyed had one in our area. A high
percentage, 81.1% of the people surveyed had the recessive traet, no white forelock. If a larger amount of data was collected the results would be more accurate
compared to the small amount of data that we have compiled, and would prove the relationship between how often a trait occurred an dominance.

Red-green colorblindness is a recessive trait. The trait for colorblindness is found on the X chromosome of a person who has it, or is a carrier. Females have two X
chromosomes and males have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome. The males infected with the trait on the X chromosome will get it, and always have it. The
females, on the other hand, must have two X chromosomes with the gene. Otherwise, with only one, they are a carrier and do not have red-green colorblindness is
passed down through a family.

If a boy's mother is a carrier and his father doesn't have red-green colorblindness then he has a 50% chance of having it. In this way, red-green colorblindness is
passed down through a family.

We have several suggestions on how to make the project better in following years. First of all we would like to suggest that you should more accurately check the
data. For instance, the data from one school was not at all accurate, the combined number of pieces of data was not equal to the total data submitted. Also I think
that you should make it clear that you want equal numbers of votes submitted for each survey item. If a group makes an entry more than once then you should add
the entries together and list the school only once.

Another problem that we had with the program was that the checked data did not include many of the schools included in the unchecked data. We think that it
would be a good idea for you to make a downloadable database of unchecked data, so it would offer the opportunity for schools to check the data on their own.
Our class had a problem printing the unchecked data; our suggestion would make it easier for classes to analyze the data if you do not have time to check it. Also,
we think that you should revise the checked data more often.

We also would like you to indicate more elaborately the difference between the straight and bent pinky, and the straight and bent thumb. You should also have a red
green only colorblind test on your website. This would be easier than to have to follow the links, and once you do follow the links it is hard to tell between what is
testing red green colorblindness and what is for other forms of colorblindness. Thank you for running this project. We hope you will consider our suggestions.

Final Report from Scarsdale Middle School, Scarsdale, New York, USA

Because I was teaching genetics at a different time than when this project was being done, my students were not as involved as I would have liked them to be. They
will be analyzing the data during the week after Memorial Day. I hope that my students will see that the more data you collect, the more accurate your results will be.
I also hope to use the data to show them that the dominant trait is not always the most frequent. In the data only the earlobe trait has the dominant trait also being
overwhelmingly more frequent than the recessive trait. For all the other traits, the frequency is either more evenly distributed or the recessive trait is much more
frequent than the dominant ( especially in terms of colorblindness). After consulting with the math teacher on my team, I will be having my students calculating
percentages and making comparisons, verbally and with graphs, between their class results, their school results, and the total project's results.

Final Report from Lincoln Middle School, Passaic, New Jersey, USA

Lincoln Middle School Passaic, NJ 8th grade Science and Math classes Ms. Jentsch, Mr. Reilly, Mrs. Varcadipane May 14, 1999 Genetics Project

We enjoyed doing the genetics project very much. Prior to studying genetics, we did not realize how many traits were inherited---such as attached / free earlobes,or
straight vs. curved thumbs and pinkies! It was very easy to survey ourclasses for the traits, except for some confusion over what is considered curvedin a thumb.
Some curves were obvious, some were questionable.

After we totaled the data and found percentages and ratios for each trait, we were very surprised to find that so many of the recessive traits showed the highest
percentage of occurrence. We thought perhaps this was due to a small sample population (1182). We are curious as to what the results might have been in a much
larger population, maybe from all over the world.

Another thing that we learned is that color-blindness is sex-linked and that it occurs mostly in males---that is why more boys have the trait in the project data. Even
though our survey had no color-blind data, one student’s father was color-blind and we were able to trace the trait through his family.

Learning about genetic traits was interesting and exciting---you could tell because many of us went home and surveyed our families for many of the traits that we
learned are inherited.

Final Report from Montgomery High School, Skillman, New Jersey, USA

The classes at Montgomery High School have completed their project and her is the final report. Mrs. Schumacher's Math Connections I class: This was a great way
 to compile data for analysis. My class calculated the experimental probability for each specific trait. We then calculated the ratios for Montgomery High School and
    then for our small class. We found the comparisons to be quite consistent. My students also found a few errors. For example: the totals under dimples were
   incorrect. The number of people surveyed did not equal the sum of the number of people with the trait and the number of people without the trait. This led to a
  discussion of experimental error. Mr. Schaub's Algebra/Geometry A: Our class enjoyed participating in the project, particularly gathering the data and comparing
    results both within the class and in relation to the overall data base. Students found that several of the traits (ear lobes, white forelock, dimples) were easy to
   determine, other traits were more difficult for some of the people surveyed. In calculating percentage we found that although there was general agreement as to
   whether a specific trait occured more or less there was a great deal of variation. As an example "free" earlobes occured more frequently in all but one recorded
 survey, the percentage of free to total varied greatly. for most students the most surprising result was that dominant trait did not in all cases result in most frequently
 observed trait. Ms. Botta" Algebra/Geometry A: Students were surprised that very people surveyed had the dominant traits. Discussions regarding dominance and
 family background were interesting. It was surprising that three of the people surveyed in such a small survey had white forelocks. Mr. Losch's Algebra/Geometry B:
 Many of the students had alreadydiscussed dominant vs recessive traits in their Biology class, and so had some preconceived notion of what the results should look
 like. Some students were surprised at how small groupings of information could give a false idea of what a large group should look like. For example, white forelock
  over a very large population is very rare, but for a few schools, well over half of the people surveyed had that trait. By finding percentages of the entire group that
    was surveyed and comparing it to various samplings from different shcools, students saw how inaccurate percentages from small populations could be. Mrs
 Servidio's BC Calculus: The most surprising thing about the data was that the dominant traits were not alsways the traits of the majority. We realized, however, after
  checking the data of the entire project, that our results were in keeeping with the others. This shows that dominant traits will show up when they are present in the
  genes , but they may be rare and not be present as often as other more common gene traits. The one color blind student we had happened to have normal vision
    relatives as far up as his parents and grandparents. It would be interesting to get data further back in his family than his grandparents. The frequencies of our
     dominant traits ranged from 85%, with unattached lobes, to 4% for white forelocks. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to participate in this project.

Final Report from St. Thomas More, San Francisco, California, USA

This year at St. Thomas More School, the sixth and seventh graders participated in the "World Wide Search for the Dominant Trait". We learned a great deal about
how DNA works. With the knowledge that the phenotype is determined by which trait is dominant, we were able to conduct studies that showed what traits are
dominant. We needed to make sure that we knew how to properly identify each trait. The precision that was necessary in getting correct results taught us about how
you must be extremely careful in any scientific studies that you conduct. We also learned the communication between members of a team is essential. Every member
of our classroom had to take a lot of responsibility, in order to conduct this study properly.

We learned a tremendous amount about what exactly a dominant trait is. During these studies it was an extremely valuable experience to study color blindness and
other X-linked traits. It was very interesting to note that one of our classmates did not suffer from dichromatism, yet his younger brother and grandfather on the
mother's side did. We had to use our scientific knowledge to find out why this happened. We already knew that dichromatism is the result of a gene on the X
chromosome. We also knew that it is highly unlikely for it to show symptoms in females. Any time that a genetic disorder can be carried by unaffected females, the
gene is recessive. Jimmy, Tony's brother, shows symptoms because he was given the X chromosome that had the gene for dichromotism. Due to the fact that there is
no such gene on Y chromosome, either gene, whether it is the gene for dichromitism or otherwise, will show up in males. Tony is not dichromatistic because he was
given the chromosome that does not carry the gene for it.

This experience has left us with an overall deeper understanding of genetics. We have also learned about the teamwork that conducting scientific studies involves, the
hard work that it takes, and no matter what the results, any experience that you learn from is worthwhile. Along with this experience came the desire to learn more,
and I think that is the best result that any experiment can come to.

Final Report from Frederick Douglas Elementary School, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

Once we (colleagues and I)were able to download the data from the project e-mail we attempted to input the data with the students into a spreadsheet. We
(teachers) decided to use our school and 3 other schools data for analysis. Our students were able to create the graph with step by step instructions, however, once
the graph was completed they were unable to understand the results. We reviewed what dominant and recessive are and concluded we should continue as a group
project.

We decided to look at each gene trait individually. Dominant was not always the dominant gene in the results. In many cases the recessive gene was the dominant
trait within the population of students surveyed. Here is what our students discovered:

Attached earlobes are the dominant gene. Douglass was the only school that did not show attached earlobes with a higher percentage rate. In our group of eleven
students 63% had attached where as Milford only 38% were attached and only 8% at Montgomery.

Having a white forelock is a dominant gene. In the four schools’ data that we used it was not dominant at any school. Frederick Douglass had 0 %, St. Thomas had
30%, and Milford had 5%.

Having a dimple is a dominant gene. We found only one school with this being the larger percentage rate. 55% of the Milford students surveyed had dimples, we
only had 45%.

Having a straight thumb is a dominant gene. We found two schools that showed dominance with the straight thumb. St. Thomas had 73% where as we only had
45%.

Having a straight pinky is a dominant gene. We found this gene was dominant in all the schools that we analyzed. The schools were in the 60 and 70 percentile.

Having mid-digit hair is a dominant gene. We found only one school where this showed up as dominant. Our school! We showed 73% of our students with mid-digit
hair.

Not having colorblindness is a dominant gene. We found that all schools showed this to be true. Two schools were 100% not colorblind.

These results were not consistent with what we read about genetics, dominant traits and recessive traits. This could be because we only used data from four schools.

Maybe the students didn’t write their information down correctly. Maybe the site researcher didn’t put the right numbers in the right places on their spreadsheet. In
conclusion, we learned from this project that genes make up our traits. We also discovered that the recessive genes can appear more often than dominant genes.

HOME