With unprecedented access to active investigations, National Geographic’s new six-part investigative series NAMING THE DEAD captures the pursuit of truth by a dedicated team of genealogists, detectives, coroners, and journalists. 

Each episode unfolds like a mystery, where scattered clues, long timelines, and emotional journeys come together. Using DNA, old records, and persistent effort, the team gives forgotten victims what they deserve: a name, a story, and a shot at justice. Combining modern science with personal stories, the series shows why identity matters and honors those who won’t let the lost be forgotten.

In an era where science is rewriting what’s possible, a new wave of DNA tech is doing what decades of investigation could not: restoring names and dignity to those who were once unknown. There’s optimism in the field of investigative genetic genealogy. 

I recently had the opportunity to interview Jennifer Randolph, Director of the DNA Doe Project, whose groundbreaking work is at the heart of NAMING THE DEAD. She speaks on the process of the DNA Doe Project, technological advances in the industry, and more. 

The Journey to Identification

Lindsey Feth: Can you walk us through the process of how the DNA Doe Project takes on an unidentified case—from sample collection to identifying a name?

Jennifer Randolph: An agency that has a case they haven’t been able to resolve through traditional methods reaches out to us to see if we might be able to help. Next, I have to have a conversation with them to understand what is available in terms of a sample for us to get DNA from this unidentified individual, because without that, we can’t really go any further.

We discuss what’s available in terms of remains or existing DNA extract, if any prior lab work was done, and based on what they tell me, we find the lab that we think is the best fit. We work with many different labs—some of them have particular expertise for particular kinds of samples—so we’ll recommend the lab that’s best suited to the case.

The first step is getting DNA extracted from whatever sample there is. The next step is taking that DNA extract, if it’s adequate—and hopefully it is—and moving to whole genome sequencing. In our organization, we always use whole genome sequencing. There are other options out there to create the kind of profile that’s needed, but because the remains for our type of cases are often very degraded—skeletal remains that have been outside for a long time—whole genome sequencing gives us the maximum flexibility. Through bioinformatics, we can handle some of the issues that come up with degraded DNA.

It’s about squeezing out the maximum information we can possibly get from that precious sample. If we’re going to consume a sample, we want to get every piece of information we can. 

Once the sequencing is done, we have this massive amount of data—way more than we need—but it gives us valuable information, such as confirming the biological sex of the Doe and their deep paternal and maternal ancestry through haplogroups. Sometimes, that’s helpful for our genealogy research.

That huge amount of data is then put through a bioinformatics pipeline and condensed down into a SNP profile. SNP is just an acronym for “single nucleotide polymorphism”—a particular kind of genetic mutation or marker. There are about 700,000 SNPs in the profile that’s created. 

The idea here is to mimic the same kind of profile people like you and me get if we take one of those direct-to-consumer tests like AncestryDNA or 23andMe. We want it to mimic that, because we’re going to place the profile of our unidentified individual into the databases that allow us to use them.

_{^{“It’s just very gratifying that someone who’s gone for so long, unnamed, is finally going to get their name back. They mattered, and giving them their name honors that.”}}

–_{^{Director of the DNA Doe Project Jennifer Randolph}}

Unfortunately, we can only use the smaller databases: GEDmatch Pro and FamilyTreeDNA. Those are each around 1.5 to 2 million people, and of course, there’s some overlap. There’s a new database just getting started called DNA Justice, which, unlike the others, is not private—it’s a nonprofit. So we usually upload there too. Their numbers are small at the moment, but they’re growing quickly.

Once the profile is uploaded, we get a list of what we call DNA relative matches. This profile is compared to everyone else in the database, and basically, anyone who shares a common DNA above a certain threshold is listed. The more DNA you share with someone, the more closely related you are. That’s when the genealogy work really kicks in—specifically, genetic genealogy.

We analyze the amount of shared DNA, the age of the individual, geography, and build their trees back in time. We study the trees of these DNA matches to find ancestors that are also in the Doe’s family tree. Essentially, we’re piecing together our Doe’s tree by studying those of people who share DNA with them. We build back in time to connect our matches to each other and then forward in time through the descendants of these common ancestors to try to find our Doe.

Once all the pieces fit and the DNA is consistent, we contact the agency and provide them with a lead they can investigate further to confirm or not confirm.

The Tech Changing the Game

Feth: I’m sure throughout your career, you’ve seen the advancements this field has taken. What technological advances have transformed your work and your career—even just in the past five years?

Randolph: That’s a great question. One thing that helped make this technique feasible is that the cost for DNA testing has come way down. Now a consumer can wait for a sale and—for $50—take one of these direct-to-consumer tests. If they want, they can upload their resulting profile into the databases we use. The more people in those databases, the more likely we are to make identifications. The probability of a more closely related match only increases.

I think one of the most remarkable developments I’ve seen—since we started in 2017—has been the ability to acquire DNA from more and more challenging samples. We’re often dealing with skeletal remains that have been outside for decades. You can imagine how hard it is to extract DNA from them.

A great example is rootless hair. When we started, you could not perform whole genome sequencing from a rootless hair. Everyone talked about how hair is fine for DNA, but you need the root. A lab pioneered a way to extract DNA even from rootless hair and get whole genome sequencing. That allowed us to resolve cases we had previously tried multiple times—with bone—and failed. We asked, “Did you save any hair from this individual?” And they had. Now those cases are resolved.

So again, the ability to get DNA from challenging samples moves cases forward—cases that just a few years ago were at a dead end. I hope that continues. I know many labs are working on it.

The other advancement is bioinformatics—our understanding of how to take this large amount of sometimes degraded data and run it through a pipeline to get accurate SNP profiles. We always have to be mindful of the quality of that profile. If the sample was really challenging and the data wasn’t great, it might perform suboptimally—it might produce what we call “false matches.” So it’ll match too many people, and some of them might not actually be related. We can see that as we work with it.

But bioinformatics has gotten much better. I think we’ll continue to see improvements in both areas.

Science Meets Heart in NAMING THE DEAD

Feth: It seems like it can be challenging—or emotional—to get these DNA samples. Many of these cases showed in NAMING THE DEAD involve decades of silence. How does it feel to finally bring someone’s name back into the world?

Randolph: It’s why we do it. It’s just very gratifying that someone who’s gone for so long, unnamed, is finally going to get their name back. They mattered, and giving them their name honors that.

We’re all very moved to have the opportunity to do that for them and to give answers to families who have wondered for so long. If law enforcement arranges it and the family wants to talk to us, sometimes they want to understand how we got to where we got to. And so, we talk to them. It’s extremely moving.

Obviously, when people first get this news, it’s a shock. It comes out of the blue for them. For us, we’ve been focused on it for a while. But pretty universally, the feedback we get is—even though it’s not the answer they wanted—at least it’s an answer.

Sometimes they’re still holding out hope that their loved one is out there somewhere. So it’s not the answer they wanted, but it’s something. Knowing what happened—rather than living with the ambiguity—allows them to process the loss and grieve. As hard as it is to give bad news, it’s less painful than not knowing.

Behind the Scenes

Feth: What was it like having National Geographic’s cameras follow your team during that time?

Randolph: It was a real learning experience for me—and for a lot of us. The production crew was amazing. They had to learn a lot to understand what we do, and I think they did. We had to learn a lot, too.

This was really the first time we’ve been followed this closely, and people will get a chance to see—up close and personal—what it looks like to work on a case. It was overwhelmingly a positive experience. We’re very fortunate we were given this opportunity, and we’re very happy with how the series came out.

It highlights the dedication of our agency partners. Some of these people have worked decades on a case—they are just as invested as we are, if not more.

And, it highlights the experience of the families, which we don’t often get to see. I think it’s important for people to understand what this is like for them. There are at least 50,000 sets of unidentified human remains in the U.S. alone. That means there are a lot of families living with this.

Opening the public’s eyes to both the problem and one potential solution is a fabulous opportunity.

Lasting Impressions of NAMING THE DEAD

Feth: What do you hope viewers take away from watching NAMING THE DEAD?

Randolph: After watching NAMING THE DEAD, I hope they appreciate that this process exists. I hope they understand that there are people working so hard to reunite these individuals with their families and their names. And maybe they’ll be inspired to take some action—maybe take a DNA test and upload their profile into a database. That one upload could help us resolve a case.

And I hope that if there are families of the missing who watch, it gives them some hope—knowing that people are working hard to bring the missing home. They are not forgotten.

Even if we can’t always give the answer they want, at least we can provide an answer. And maybe some will be inspired to upload their DNA if they have a missing loved one. Whether we’re doing the work or someone else is—if this series leads to new identifications, that would be pretty special.

Tune into National Geographic’s new six-part investigative series NAMING THE DEAD. Premieres Saturday, August 2 at 10/9c on Nat Geo TV and streams next day on Disney+ and Hulu. 

---

Here at The Tech Optimist, we believe in progress with purpose. Anyone can make a positive impact. Be a part of the change! Give to the DNA Doe Project.