In Israel, scientists have proven that it is now possible to fabricate DNA evidence. They have fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. As well as that, they have demonstrated that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they can construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without needing any tissue from that person. Dr. Frumkin, founder of Nucleix, developed a test to distinguish real DNA samples from fake ones that he hopes to sell to forensics laboratories.
The scientists fabricated DNA samples in two ways. One requires a tiny DNA sample, such as a strand of hair or a drinking cup. They then amplify the sample into a large quantity of DNA using a standard technique called whole genome amplification. One woman had a blood sample taken, which was then centrifuged to remove the white cells, which contain DNA. To the remaining red cells, they added DNA that had been amplified from a man’s hair. Since red cells do not contain DNA, all the genetic material in the blood sample belonged to the man. The other technique relies on DNA profiles, a series of numbers and letters corresponding to variations at 13 spots in a person’s genome. From a pooled sample of many people’s DNA, the scientists cloned tiny DNA samples representing the common variants at each spot. To prepare a DNA sample matching any profile, the scientists mixed the proper samples together.
This test proves if a sample has been fabricated because it relies on the fact that amplified DNA lacks certain molecules that are attached to the DNA at specific points, usually to inactivate genes. Dr. Frumkin’s design has proven to be very helpful and will be of great assistance for forensics scientists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html
10 comments:
One thing I liked was how the article gave the name of the company the guy who started this system worked for. Another thing I liked was how it gave two examples of how they fabricated the DNA. The final thing I liked was how the author illustrated the different types of DNA used. The article could have given profiles of the people who’s DNA was taken. Also they should tell the reader what samples they mixed instead of just saying two samples. DNA lacks certain molecules in inactive genes are something that I learned.
“DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show,” was a very interesting article. It is very well presented how people are able to manipulate DNA evidence collected in crimes. Blood and saliva samples containing DNA were altered from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. As well, it is well stated how Dr. Frumkin, the founder of Necleix, has developed a test to distinguish real DNA from fake DNA using whole genome amplification. Finally, it is presented how if DNA is lacking certain molecules, you can be sure it was fabricated.
One idea on the article review would be to break it up into body paragraphs. One large paragraph makes it difficult to distinguish one idea from another. An additional suggestion would be to give an example of a recent crime that could have used this knowledge during its investigation. Overall, the article was fascinating because it seems that DNA fabrication has not been able to be stopped until now. We hope that Dr. Frumkin can continue his research which greatly assists forensic scientists.
Larissa summarized the article, "DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show." This article was very interesting because it explained a test that had been developed to distinguish real and fake DNA. Also, it was interesting to learn that even though DNA for years has been thought of as always being correct, it has now been proven that this is not the case. In addition, only certain DNA molecules contain the information that distinguishes one person from another, allowing DNA to be fabricated.
This summary could have been improved if there were more examples or cases in which DNA was fabricated. Also, Larissa opinions and thoughts on the topic could have helped readers.
I learned from this article that no matter how trustworthy something can be there is always the possibility for mistakes and errors.
Throughout Larissa's article, I thought that there were many aspects that were presented very well. Some of these include how she explained the process in which DNA evidence is fabricated. Also, she incorporated many details into the presentation. Also, I liked how she used professional opinions, such as Dr. Frumkin. 2 suggestions on how this review could be made even better would be adding some quotes. Also, I would have liked it if she added her own opinion. Overall, I was very impressed with the article and learned many new things regarding DNA fabrication.
During the summary of this article, Larissa, in my view did a great job of explaining the steps needed to copy a DNA profile, which has caused so many problems for forensic scientists to analyze a crime scene if there is fabricated DNA present at the scene. She also did a good job of explaining how DNA fabrication can be made and ultimately how it can be solved now, and most likely that issue wont be present and cause many issues at crime scenes. However, in the article it would have been helpful to give an example of when DNA fabrication could be used and what scientists do to realize that the sample is in fact fabricated. I also think that it would have been good if Larissa had given her opinion on what she thought about scientists finding the solution to DNA fabrication. Overall, I thought that the article was very interesting and I thought that it shows a major step forward in the certainty of forensics scientists while analyzing a crime scene.
The article was extremely interesting. One of the main reasons I like this article was because i had no idea that it was possible to reconstruct DNA. Another element of this article i really found interesting was the fact that even though they have developed a way in which to reconstruct DNA they have simultaneously found away to tell the real DNA from the fake DNA. In addition i found it fascinating that the DNA could be constructed from something as tiny as a piece of hair. I wish this article explained how exactly this new technique came around. Also the division of paragraphs in this article was not very good. I think this article was very informative and exciting.
I felt Larrissa chose a topic that is very relevant, as these are the types of things we are going over in class. Thus the information holds a greater context. Larrissa also made the conclusion of these experiments very clear and concise, as well as succeeded in presenting the experiments practicalities.
However, I feel that some of Larrissa's writing could have used improvement; there were times where poorly written segments confused me as the reader. Additionally, some parts of the experiment where not conveyed clearly enough and I lost track of the general procedure. More clarity would be useful in the future.
It was overall curious to find that there is a necessity in determining the validity of DNA evidence. I assume that part of this might have been brought on by the "forging" of DNA, which astounds me.
The article "DNA Evidence can be fabricated, scientists show" is a very interesting article. I think that it was well stated how Dr. Frumkin, the founder of Necleix, has also developed a test to distinguish real DNA from fake DNA using whole genome amplification. Finally, it is very well presented how people are able to manipulate DNA evidence in crimes. Finally, the article analyzes the fact that if DNA is lacking certain molecules, it is surely fabricated.
One idea that the article review would have it not be one large run-on pararaph. The one-pararaph style makes it more confusing and harder to read. Another suggestion would be to give an example of a recent crime that could have used this knowledge during its investigation. Finally, this article was extremely interesting because it seems that DNA fabrication is a far more prevalent problem than I ever would have imagined.
This Article was very interesting is shows how far technology has actually come, and it is amazing. It is very descriptive to how a person can minipulate his or her own DNA. And if a DNA is missing certian molocules then that makes it is how the DNA was fabricated.
An idea to make the summary better, would be to break it up into seperate paragraphs, one cluster of words makes it less intresting to read, and ultimatley more boring.
I like the fact that Larissa chose a topic that is relevant to what we are learning in class currently. The information is well presented and holds more of my interest because it is focused around what we are leaning. The topic is also interesting which is a plus.
Grammar was defiantly an issue in this review, for it threw me off several times as a reader trying to follow where her sentences and ideas led to. In addition there were parts of the experiment that could have been explained better and conveyed clearer.
I learned that though there are many advancements in the field of examining DNA mistakes can be made, and data might not be as precise as many claim it to be.
Post a Comment