http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091029155956.htm
DNA samples are often used to convict criminals. However, many of today's forensics tests are polluted so they cannot be used. Researchers are working together at the Lund University in Sweden in order to improve a critical piece in this analysis process. Some of the findings indicate that the new DNA method strengthens DNA analysis so that previously negative samples can now yield positive and usable DNA profiles. As genetic information grows increasingly more common within forensic analysis, the analysis flow starts with taking a sample with a swab from a drinking glass or blood spot. The cells from the swab are then dissolved in water, and the DNA is extracted. The next step is the copying step. This step finds the best chemical environment and replaces a key enzyme with a DNA polymerase. This yields a clearer genetic footprint, or DNA profile, to use. Also, new mathematical models that makes it easy to interpret that DNA analysis are being devises. If the copying phase is improved, stronger DNA evidence can be shown from the crime scenes, which is very important since this can ultimately link a person to a crime scene with greater certainty.
3 comments:
What I found interesting about this article was that it talked about a way to improve DNA technology. I found it interesting that this new techonology could de-contaminate samples that have in the past, been unusable. This could revolutionize forensic technology for more guilty suspects could be convicted and there would be less question/doubt in a particular case.
What I would want to know more about is what would happen if this technology got in the wrong hands and could it be used in a worst-case scenario situation to convict someone who is innocent. I would also like to know more about the decontamination process and how it is done and if it is valid.
Finally, what I found particularly interesting is that DNA is copied again and again in order to get more information from it. I always thought scientists just looked at one piece of DNA, not copies of the same strand.
What I found well presented about this article was the source of information taken from the article. I thought that it covered all the important parts and didn’t bring in any random facts. I also liked that it was about a method of DNA analysis, because we just finished a section on that and it is interesting to read an article about something that you can relate to. As well as that, it was interesting to learn that there are new mathematical models that make it easy to interpret DNA analysis. If I could change something about the article, I would add the names of the people who discovered these models and maybe the date when it happened. Also, I would include specific cases that these devices have been helpful for. Something that impressed me was that the cells from the swab are dissolved in water to extract the DNA. I think that is really interesting and I didn’t know that before.
i liked nancy chose an article which relates to something we recently covered. it makes me feel like we learn things that are actually useful in life. it was also interesting to find that they are still discovering things about DNA that can really help the forensic world. i was also surprised at how well nancy covered and noted the article so well. so i liked that too.
i wish she did tell more about the decontamination process and how it really works more specifically. i would have also added specific cases where these new DNA techniques were used successfully.
i also really liked how she explained how these scientists copy pieces of DNA over and over again to truly discover everything about the DNA. i always thought they just looked at a piece but it is so much more than that in reality.
Post a Comment