Human genomic data have different statistical properties than the data of randomised controlled trials.

Madole & Harden argue that the Mendelian reshuffling of genes and genomes is analogous to randomised controlled trials. We are not convinced by their arguments. First, their recipe for meeting the demands on randomised experiments is inherently inconsistent. Second, disequilibrium across chromosomes conflicts with their assumption of statistical independence. Third, the genome-wide association study (GWAS) method has many pitfalls, including low repeatability.

The estimation of reproductive values from pedigrees.

Quantifying fitness is important to understand adaptive evolution. Reproductive values are useful for making fitness comparisons involving different categories of individuals, like males and females. By definition, the reproductive value of a category is the expected per capita contribution of the members of that category to the gene pool of future generations. Life history theory reveals how reproductive values can be determined via the estimation of life-history parameters, but this requires an adequate life-history model and intricate algebraic calculations. Recently, an alternative pedigree-based method has become popular, which estimates the expected genetic contribution of individuals to future generations by tracking their descendants down the pedigree. This method is versatile and intuitively appealing, but it is unknown if the method produces estimates of reproductive values that are accurate and precise. To investigate this, we implement various life-history scenarios (for which the "true" reproductive values can be calculated) in individual-based simulations, use the simulation data to estimate reproductive values with the pedigree method, and compare the results with the true target values. We show that the pedigree-based estimation of reproductive values is either biased (in the short term) or imprecise (in the long term). This holds even for simple life histories and under idealized conditions. We conclude that the pedigree method is not a good substitute for the traditional method to quantify reproductive values.