Tuesday, March 10, 2009

DNA Paternity Test Almost Fooled: Man Put Someone Else's Saliva In His Mouth

Taking a paternity test is not as simple as it was anymore: Forensic scientists are now asking the person taking any kind of test involving the mouth, to rinse their mouths before in front of a witness. The fraud attempt took place in a paternity test, when the donor mixed his own saliva with that of someone else's. Researchers from all over the world have been carrying out paternity tests regularly. Samples are usually collected from mouth and saliva cells to carry out the DNA analysis. The team of Dr José Antonio Lorente Acosta states "the saliva analysis collected from a person undergoing a paternity test gave an incongruous result, a DNA which could not come from the man who had carried out the test."

When they reviewed the case, it revealed that they had followed the usual procedure: the suspect washed his mouth and after that they took the samples with a cotton swab. "After repeating the analysis, there was an only one possible conclusion: In the mouth of that man there was DNA from two different persons" said Dr.Acosta. Dr. Acosta then asked the man in question how he did it and he confessed that he did so by putting someone elses' saliva into his mouth which he was keeping in a container. After a further test, it was revealed that he was in fact the biological father (99.999998%)!.

2 comments:

Kelly said...

This is a very intersting article.I find it intersting that people h ave come up with wyas to avoid being tested for this, such as paterinty, This also happens in the case of alcohol testing. Yet, after admitting to contaiminating his saliva, they ran another test that came out postive. So this proves that science has come a long way. It woudl have been good to see more examples of this, and maybe some of the other tests that were administered in this process.

Trent Emanuel said...

The article catches the reader's eye from the start and is very interesting. The fact that forensics can catch people who might do things such as this means that the technology we have is good. It would have been interesting if the author had decided to explain in detail how the perpetrator was caught. Overall good article, and good summary.