Thursday, November 5, 2015
Familial DNA searches.
In 1996 a teenager named Angie Dodge was murdered in Idaho Falls. A man was convicted for the crime after giving a confession, but police thought there was more to the crime. The man who confessed had DNA that did not match that of the DNA that was found at the crime scene. Fast forward to the present. One day in December, three men showed up at a man named Michael Usry's house. They were police officers, and they wanted to question him. After much questioning, they presented him with a warrant to take a cheek swab in order to test his DNA. Michael soon learned that he was a suspect in the 1996 murder of Angie Dodge. The only lead that they had, was that his fathers DNA had similarities to the DNA that was found at the crime scene. The police had access to his fathers DNA because he had donated his DNA to a foundation that was later sold to Ancestry.com. The database of DNA was publicly searchable, and this made it a resource for the police to use to search genetic leads of people who's DNA were not on record with the police. After 38 stressful days, it was determined that his DNA did match that of the crime scene. This situation brings the question, is familial DNA testing ethical? How long until people are wrongly convicted because of familial DNA testing? Have people been wrongly incarcerated already because of familial DNA testing? A simple accusation like the one presented in this story can easily ruin someones life, even if they are not convicted. Familial DNA testing yields an upsettingly high rate of false positives. A study done in the United Kingdom showed that in familial DNA searching, there was only a 17% rate of finding the actual offender. Many states are passing rules and regulations and even completely banning the use of familial DNA searching because of the extremely high rate of false accusations that come from it. Peoples lives have been ruined because of false accusations that were leaked to the media.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Sean Ryan
Forensics
Current Event Review
I read Eric's summary of the article Familial DNA searches. I found it to be very interesting do to how controversial it is. This idea of making it allowable for police to investigate entire families based on DNA is a hard thing decide if it should be allowed. On one hand Eric stated how it unfair for the families, who are many times innocent. On the other hand though the 17 percent of the time it does work, helps the victims families get justice. I wished you talked more about the times the familial DNA worked. This article seemed to be one sided and was against police and them being able to do there job.Obviously it can be stressful for the family, but it is for the good of the people.I found it interesting how there was only a 17 percent rate of finder the offender. i would have though with DNA it would be somewhere in the 90th percentile with finder the suspect.
I thought that Eric overall did a good job at summarizing the article and noting the major things that us as readers should take from it. To begin, I was constantly intrigued to read more throughout the beginning of the review. The summary of the article and the case was short, sweet, and told all of the key details that readers should know. Secondly, I thought that Eric did a great job posing questions for us to think about, which clearly showed this topic’s relevance in our society today. DNA testing can be very controversial and a very difficult process, as sometimes an outcome can be incorrect, and someone can be wrongly incarcerated. Finally, Eric did a great job at providing facts for readers to make the controversy of DNA testing more understandable. The fact that success numbers regarding DNA testing are so low, forensic scientists may want to rethink its reliability.
While Eric did many things very well on his article review, one of the things he could have done better was providing more of a flow to the summary of the case. While it was great that the summary was brief and told all of the key details, it could have flowed a little bit better to make the read smoother. Another thing that Eric could have done better is stating what actually happened at the end of the case. Knowing what happened to Michael Usry just from the article review would have left me more satisfied as a reader with the review.
Overall, Eric did a terrific job with this article review. After reading it, I was very shocked how unsuccessful DNA testing can be. Crime shows make the process seem so reliable and a sure thing, so I was shocked to see how little it actually works.
Eric did a very nice job reviewing this article. I very much appreciated that he included the background of the case along with the arrest of the suspect. After a summary of the events, Eric goes on to include questions that the reader can then ask themselves and attempt to answer. These questions were brought in perfectly. After bring in questions, he helps provide answers to those questions by including data/studies from the UK.
One thing I wished to have learned from the review is whether or not Michael’s life was “ruined” after these allegations. Eric talks about how even an allegation can ruin someone’s life, so it would have been interesting to learn what happened after. Another thing I wished Eric brought up is why Michael was talked too almost 20 years after the event took place. How did they connect it to him before they tested the information.
Eric’s review was filled with enough information to obtain the knowledge of the case. This case shines a light on the serious question of are people in jail for crimes they have not committed due to failure of receiving evidence.
Eric’s review was equipped with many strong points throughout the entire thing. The first thing being the story he chose, and how he presented it in the article. It was a truly interesting topic to read about, my attention was fully invested in the review the entire time. By not boring the reader with information, and getting straight to the point it leaves a very positive impact. Also I thought he presented strong questions during the review which were: “is familial DNA testing ethical? How long until people are wrongly convicted because of familial DNA testing? Have people been wrongly incarcerated already because of familial DNA testing?” These questions forced me to think about the world that we live in today, and ask myself my opinion on what is occurring. Lastly, Eric did a great job of presenting some information that could have easily been left out of the review which was: “study done in the United Kingdom showed that in familial DNA searching, there was only a 17% rate of finding the actual offender.” This gave me a better idea of the surrounding topics.
Although Eric had many strong points there are a few things he could improve upon. First of all I felt as if the summary given was hard to follow at some points (example: After much questioning, they presented him with a warrant to take a cheek swab in order to test his DNA. Michael soon learned that he was a suspect in the 1996 murder of Angie Dodge. The only lead that they had, was that his fathers DNA had similarities to the DNA that was found at the crime scene) I was a little confused and felt that this could be worded a little better. Also he brought up many things on the false accusations, but never told us if the father was wrongly accused in the end of the review!
I learned many things about a growing topic in the forensic scientist world, this also made me feel quite shaky about DNA testing. I think that we must figure out a better way to go about this because it seems to me that wrong accusations are quite popular.
After reading Eric's review on this article, I really feel like I took a lot of useful information away from it. To start off, the first aspect of the review that I thought was well presented and that i noticed first was how he got right to the point and gave lots of facts and details. Another aspect that I enjoyed seeing in Eric's article was the type of questions he brought up. I say this because false-positives for DNA can really happen to anybody and can as Eric said "ruin someones life...". Last but not least, another great aspect of the review was how it addressed the serious problem in the U.K about false familiar DNA testing and how it is almost turning into some sort of epidemic.
Although Eric did provide many facts and details, one thing that this review could've used was more specific information on how the false familiar DNA testing can ruin someones life.... I would've liked to have seen some examples of it. Another thing that this article could've done better, is to give a summary of the article and its importance at the end of the review; maybe a conclusion would've made the articles purpose a bit clearer.
One thing that I learned from this article and quite frankly flabbergasted by, was how in the U.K, 17% is the rate of the finding from familiar DNA testing that are the actual offender. In all honestly, I am unable to see how any case could be solved using familiar DNA testing knowing how faulty it actually is.
I thought Eric did a great job at summarizing the article and addressing its problems. I also especially liked the questions brought up from the article, is familial DNA testing ethical? of course not. there's absolutely no room for mistakes when playing with someone's life especially if said person is suspected of murder. the article has more than enough information and Eric managed to keep it all shortened down so that the reader wasn't left bored half to death reading it.
I learned that some methods of testing evidence aren't exactly accurate and this can be a major problem when solving a case.
Post a Comment