http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html?_r=1
Recent studies have shown that DNA evidence collected from a crime scene might lose some of its credibility. Scientists in Israel have proven that it is possible and in fact unsettlingly easy to fabricate DNA samples at the scene of a crime. The scientists were able to fabricate both saliva and blood samples from a man who was not at the crime scene, along with reconstructing the DNA of any person within a given database. Using a drinking cup or a cigarette butt, it is possible to scrape together enough genetic material to amplify into evidence to be planted at a crime scene. Dr. Dan Frumkin, leader of the project and author of the scientific paper, stated that “You could just engineer a crime scene… any biology undergrad could perform this”. The scientists used two methods to construct fake DNA evidence: one required a small sample from an individual such as saliva from a drinking cup, then amplifying the DNA using a technique known as whole genome amplification. The other method involved taking snippets from a DNA profile database in a series of numbers and letters corresponding to the 13 places within the genome that they appear, and then cloning them.
While it is clear that not every criminal would have the resources available to him to accomplish a task such as fabricating DNA, the scientific evidence suggests that samples of DNA found at a crime scene cannot be relied on for 100% accuracy in naming the culprit. Tania Simonielli, science advisor to the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the findings were worrisome because “DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints… We’re creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology”. It is clear from the evidence in this article that DNA evidence perhaps should no longer be considered the gold standard of proof in criminal investigations.
Luke Nichols
4 comments:
The parts of this review that were well presented were his opinion that fabricating DNA evidence was easy while backing it up with evidence from the article, the description of what is needed to fabricate DNA to be planted at crime scenes, and the description of how this affects forensic science. This review could have been made better by naming specific studies or giving any cases in which it has been proven that DNA has been planted. While I knew that DNA evidence could be fabricated, from this review I learned that any undergraduate biology student would know how to do so.
One aspect of the review that I thought was very well presented was the fact that it is so easy to fabricate another person’s DNA. All that is needed is a sample of their saliva from a drinking cup. Another part that I believed was well presented was the fact that the review showed how people can fabricate a person’s DNA and it really put you into the process of what a scientist would have to do. Third would be that DNA can no longer be the defining factor when it comes to forensic investigations.
One suggestion that I would recommend is that the review go more in depth of the process of recreating the DNA and explaining the scientific procedures a little more. Another would be to possibly mention some forensic cases where this fabricated DNA has been used and how scientists were able to get around it and still complete the investigation.
What impressed me the most about this article was that it really opened my eyes to how dependent forensics is the DNA. Fingerprints are no longer the number one way to solve a crime and link a suspect to a scene, but now neither is DNA. With this new ability to replicate DNA many innocent people may prosecuted and sent to jail. A knew way is needed to positively connect suspects to a crime or scientists must find a way to determine if a DNA sample found at a crime scene was planted or truly from the scene.
A few things I liked was that he showed what type of people were able to replicate the DNA, any undergrad in biology. I liked how he showed where the DNA can be sampled from ciggerette butts and drinking cups. I also liked that he showed how DNA is easier to plant a crime scene than fingerprints and DNA is losing its reliability.
I would suggest to show what the process of replicating the DNA is like and what steps might be taken by a criminal to plant them. I would also suggest to show how crime scene investigators can identify that the DNA is replicated.
One aspect I really liked was how he showed how the DNA can be gathered through the drinking cups and how he said a crime scene can just be engineered through the copying of DNA.
This review was well presented, given that Luke stated his opinion that fabricating DNA evidence was easy to do while providing evidence from the article; such as, the requirements to fabricate DNA at crime scenes as well as the description of how this affects forensic science. This review could have been improved by stating actual cases of fabrication or even stating other studies of this action. What I really found interesting was how he revealed that DNA could be taken from drinking cups, as well as the entire crime scene being reconstructed from the copying of DNA gathered.
Post a Comment