http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html?_r=1
The use of DNA in criminal investigations is being questioned. Scientists are now saying that DNA is not the best proof in a criminal case. DNA is no longer the perfect; it is now possible for scientist to replicate DNA. They were able to copy blood and saliva samples from one DNA donor and replicate that same DNA. “You can just engineer a crime scene,” said Dan Frumkin. This process is not hard either. It can be carried out by any undergraduate biology student. To fix this problem, scientists are beginning to create systems that can detect the fake DNA samples and send them out to forensic labs so that the fake DNA will not be a problem. Another finding is that a person’s DNA can be replicated by just acquiring their drinking cup or cigarette butt. Celebrities might have to fear “genetic paparazzi,” said Gail H. Javitt of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University. “DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints,” said Javitt. “We’re creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology.” The one positive aspect about this is that the average criminal most likely could not perform this successfully. There are two ways to copy DNA: one is to gain a sample of a person’s DNA from piece of hair and through whole genome amplification the sample can be enlarged. The other technique has to do with DNA databases and profiles. In a lab as a series of numbers and letters corresponding to variations at 13 spots in a person’s genome tell their DNA profile.
This article is very important to society because now it is known that DNA evidence is not the best; it does have its faults. Also, people have to be more careful since their DNA can be copied just by someone acquiring a strand of their hair or their drinking cup. The best way to really be sure about anything in a crime scene investigation is to use all aspects of forensic science to solve the case. One alone cannot safely prove the case without doubt.
The article is written as if it is very easy for someone to copy DNA. But it does not go into the process very well so it is not know how simple the DNA’s replication is. It causes the reader to feel like they have to be careful about what they do with certain things that have their DNA on them. Scientists are already creating new systems that can determine what DNA samples are real and what samples are the copies. Once these are created they will be sold to forensic labs all over the country so that the process of replicating DNA will not affect a crime investigation.
6 comments:
1 – I liked the facts about the use of DNA and how it is not the best sample in criminal cases.
2 – I like the description on how DNA can be replicated through saliva and blood
3 – liked how the article said and proved how DNA is easier to plant at a crime scene than a fingerprint.
1 – The article could have given an example of how this was discovered or if it had been done before to manipulate a crime scene.
2 – The article could have discussed if the created DNA and real DNA can be distinguished in a crime scene.
1 - I learned that DNA is not the best proof in a criminal case.
1. I liked the facts that they presented to their argument that DNA is not the best sample in criminal cases.
2. I like the explanation of which they say that DNA can be replicated using anything you touch.
3. I liked how the article showed that DNA can be planted and replicated with ease.
1- The article could describe better on how they came to such a discovery.
2- The article could also show houw people replicate and plant DNA.
1-I learned that DNA can no longer be used to put a suspect at a crime scene because the DNA could have been replicated and planted.
Three Aspects
1. How DNA can be acquired, replicated and planted at a crime scene.
2. I liked that fingerprints can also be planted at a crime scene but someones DNA can be replicated and planted much easier.
3. I liked how scientists are aware of this problem and are already on their way to finding a way around the real and copied DNA.
Two Recomendations
1. Explain the process of how scientists can identify, real and copied DNA.
2. Explain where this idea came from and when scientists learned they needed to be careful of copied DNA in a crime scene.
One Thing You learned
1. DNA was on it's way to becoming the newest and best way of identification in criminal cases, but it is now easier to reproduce DNA than it is to copy a fingerprint.
Three aspects
-The article explained how it is possible to fabricate DNA through saliva and blood samples.
-It is important that this article explained the ease of planting DNA at a crime scene as opposed to fingerprints.
-It also showed how if a person had access to DNA profile in that database they could construct an accurate sample to match that profile.
Two Suggestions
-I thought the article could have described the process of fabricating the DNA evidence using the saliva and blood samples.
-The article could have mentioned more about how the scientists know the DNA is not the real DNA before it was tampered with.
One thing i learned
-I learned how easy it is for people the fabricate and tamper with DNA evidence at crime scenes, and how it is not as solid proof as it used to be in criminal cases.
The aspects of this review that were well presented were the description of how DNA evidence is planted, what forensic scientists are trying to do to stop this, and how this effects the criminal justice system. This review could have been made better by citing any instances the faking of DNA was proven, as well as how scientists found out people were planting fake DNA. I learned that DNA is not as reliable as a source of evidence as many believe.
1- I like it shows that DNA can be swapped out.
2- I like how DNA has become out dated despite that fact that it is new.
3- I like how the article showed that planting DNA is very easy.
1- It should have shown how scientists discover fake DNA.
2- How did scientists learn that they could ID fake DNA
1- I would like to know how people created fake DNA a learned how they could do it.
Post a Comment