1/3
3 Years of Service
I don't know what study it is, or if it's just from researching how it works with other animals. But I'm pretty sure the first generation of incest has a low risk, likely if there's no recent incest in the peoples' ancestry.I would want to see that study too, cuz it doesn't math. Remember too that most negative genetic issues (really most genetic anything) isn't controlled by a single set of genes. So the limited options of genetics just mean more liklihood of the multiple markers having these negative genes
I believe that with how genetics works, you won't have all the same genes as whoever it's with. With a parent, they did pass on all their genes to you. With a sibling, you probably didn't get all the same genes from your parents. With a cousin, as long as no recent previous incest, I doubt the risk of overlapping genes is too high since other genes were given to the cousin that you couldn't have.
So the first generation as the same risk as any other pregnancy. It's once you continue to mix the same pool of genes with little outside genes that risks exponentially increase.
For example, if we only view siblings. Generation one have enough difference that the risk would be low, but gen 2 of siblings would have little difference in what genes they get, likely many overlapping as the pool of what genes get passed on is smaller and thus more overlapping. Go even further, and obviously we get mutations and unhealthy birth and infirtility. I think there's a family somewhere in the US that became so inbred that their skin was just blue due to mutations, and they turned to the government to try and help them, or something.
I'm no expert though, so all that I said was just from my understanding of genetics. It probably would be better to find the study, or studies, that looked into this. I don't really know where to start looking for that though.