A new test that can be performed at crime scenes can help forensic scientists determine whether the suspect is a male or female. This test is based on certain amino acids found in fingerprints. The levels of these acids are twice as high in the sweat of women than as men. This test has been done a doorknob, a desktop, a benchtop and a computer screen. In every case forensic experts were able to determine whether the person who touched the object was male or female due to the levels of residual amino acids. However, according to Dr. Hamalek, the study “involved only a few fingerprints, however, and a larger sample is required to ensure the results are statistically significant.” Scientists are trying to create further tests using protein markers found in blood samples to create a “very simple kit” that can determine whether the person is “young or old, male or female, and their ethnicity.” However, these tests it is important to note will not replace DNA tests even with their high costs and and time consumption.
This new test is very important to society as a whole. If forensic experts can perform this test and get correct results every time, then police forces can easily narrow down suspects, especially if the tests that determine age and ethnicity are performed. However, if this test is not perfected, then people could be wrongfully crossed off the list as a suspect. But all in all, this would avoid people from being considered suspects when they shouldn’t be.
This article was very interesting. I liked how the author talked about specific examples of where this test was performed. I also liked that she didn’t just say this new test is working fine. She explained thoroughly how this test is still being perfected. I wish she went into depth about how the test actually worked. I also wish she went into more detail about how it will be implemented into society. Overall, I really enjoyed reading this article.
Bhanoo, Sindya N. "New Technique Can Classify a Fingerprint as Male or Female." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Nov. 2015. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.
10 comments:
I think your summary of the article was made stronger by quoting Dr. Hamalek, an expert in the field. I like that you acknowledged the possibilities that the tests were flawed because not enough fingerprints were used. It made your review seem unbiased and trustworthy. I also noticed that you did not use the forensic website, but instead New York Times, I liked that you switched it up! It also makes me realize it’s probably more of a popular topic, great find!I think your review could have been improved through some peer editing. Some of the sentences were a bit choppy. All the info was there, it just didn’t flow properly. I also think it would have been better to note the piece about the test not being able to replace DNA tests. That way it would not interfere with your ‘relevance’ paragraph. I had no idea you could tell so much from a fingerprint, all of this was very interesting to learn about. Great article!
Bhanoo, Sindya N. "New Technique Can Classify a Fingerprint as Male or Female." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Nov. 2015. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.
Ralph did a great job in reviewing a topic that is relevant to not only the science world, but to our forensic class specifically. What Ralph did particularly well was that he used a quote directly from his article to help describe the fingerprints first testing. Ralph also did well in how he explained the process of the fingerprint scanning. He could have easily stated the new invention without describing it, but he did a thorough job of that. Also, Ralph did a good job in posing both the pros and cons that this new invention could possibly hold on our society.
If I were to give any advice to Ralph it would be to just reread what he wrote once to look out for some grammatical errors. Another piece of advice that I would give Ralph would be to possibly include an introduction. His review started out describing the process of the invention, and it would have been nice to have a bit of a lead in.
I really enjoyed reading this review, I thought it was particularly interesting how levels of amino acids found in fingerprints are twice as high in women than in men.
I thought that Ralph overall did a great job in his review of the article he read. Specifically, I thought that he did a great job with his overall summary of the new test that can identify gender from a fingerprint. Another thing that I thought he did well was discussing how identifying gender from a fingerprint could positively impact the world and the forensic world. This is one of the key components of these reviews, and it is good to see that he is thoroughly discussing this matter. Finally, I thought that Ralph did a great job discussing the pros and cons of this new technology. It made it easier to understand.
While Ralph did many things well in his review some of the things he could have worked on include editing a little more thoroughly, as there were a few grammatical errors, and he could have possibly had a “hook” sentence at the beginning of his review, to make it more enticing, and more exciting to read overall.
Overall Ralph did a great job with his review on his article, and I was shocked to learn that our society was so advanced as to almost instantly be able to tell the gender of a person from a fingerprint.
Works Cited:
Bhanoo, Sindya N. "New Technique Can Classify a Fingerprint as Male or Female." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Nov. 2015. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.
I think that Mr. Ralph did a fantastic job in creating an interesting piece of literature with a great blend of facts and opinionated material. Technology that allows forensic scientists to determine gender from fingerprints would be revolutionary to the field. I thought that he did a great job in extracting the facts from the article. Ralph's current event could have possibly used facts from outside article. Overall this was a fantastic current event.
Overall, I thought Ralph did a good job balancing the summary of the article, its connection to the world, and his own reflection. Ralph provided a good summary that allowed his audience to immediately understand the context of the article. I think Ralph provided his audience with enough background information, and he also did a good job explaining how the new test has been tested so far. I also really liked that he gave us a specific quote from a scientist that is working in this specific field. I always find quotes to be insightful and great for incorporating detail into the text. Not to mention, quoting specific experts establishes the reviewers credibility on the subject.
One thing I think Ralph could have done better is explaining why this new test would not replace the DNA testing that is already being used. If it would be too difficult or inconvenient to replace current testing, then I wonder what the point of experimenting with this new test is. So overall, I think Ralph could have worked on developing what this testing means for all of us more clearly.
Overall, I enjoyed reading Ralph’s review of the article, and I think it is always interesting to read about how forensic scientists are constantly coming up and testing new methods for solving crimes and analyzing evidence. It is good to see that these scientists strive for progress because it can make us confident that linking perpetrators to crimes will only get easier and more accurate.
Ralph provided his audience with enough background information, and he also did a good job explaining how the new test has been tested so far. I also really liked that he gave us a specific quote from a scientist that is working in this specific field. I always find quotes to be insightful and great for incorporating detail into the text. Not to mention, quoting specific experts establishes the reviewers credibility on the subject. One thing I think Ralph could have done better is explaining why this new test would not replace the DNA testing that is already being used. If it would be too difficult or inconvenient to replace current testing, then I wonder what the point of experimenting with this new test is. So overall, I think Ralph could have worked on developing what this testing means for all of us more clearly.
I enjoyed reading Ralph’s review of the article, and I think it is always interesting to read about how forensic scientists are constantly coming up and testing new methods for solving crimes and analyzing evidence. It is good to see that these scientists strive for progress because it can make us confident that linking perpetrators to crimes will only get easier and more accurate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/science/new-technique-can-identify-gender-from-a-fingerprint.html?ref=topics
Bhanoo, Sindya N. "New Technique Can Classify a Fingerprint as Male or Female." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Nov. 2015. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.
I enjoyed reading Ralph’s review and the article “New Technique Can Classify a Fingerprint as Male or Female” and learned many interesting new things. I liked many aspects of Ralph’s review. First, I liked how he talked about the science behind determining whether a fingerprint belongs to a man or a woman, using amino acids. This made me, the reader, understand the science behind this accomplishment more and how they achieved it. Also, I liked how he referred to a scientist who gave his opinion on this science phenomenon, this made the review more realistic by talking about a person who was involved in this discovery. Lastly, I liked Ralph explained how this discovery will change society and the study of forensic science, this made us realize how truly important this discovery is and how it can change the world. Although there were many good aspects of this review, there were also some bad aspects.
First, I did not like the organization of the review because it did not “flow” or ideas did not connect from one to another. It seemed like his ideas were just pasted onto the review, regardless of the order of information or whether it was clear. Also, although Ralph provided some information about the information on the discovery and process, he did not address the history of this technique and how the previous technique was not successful.
I learned many new things by reading this review. First, I learned how complicated it is to examine fingerprints and how the use of amino acids could lead a forensic scientist to determining whether a fingerprint belonged to a male or female. Also, I learned how important this discovery will be to the examination of fingerprints and this makes me look forward to the future of forensic science. This article and review changed my perception and understanding of forensic science by making me understand the study of fingerprints and its properties. Overall, I enjoyed reading both the article and review and look forward to learning more about this topic in the future.
As a whole, I thought Ralph reviewed well by summarizing the article while finding its connection to our reality, and interjecting his own reflection as well. He presented a good concise summary that grasped the crux of the article. He did this by providing background information and explaining how the new test has been tested until recently. How he gave integrated specific quotes from involved scientists also contributed in making this review a credible piece.
What I think this review is lacking is the explanation of why this new test cannot replace the DNA testing we have today. I find it difficult to understand the point of investing in this research if this innovation is not used to advance the technology we have now. Thus, I think if he gave the readers more information of this new innovation, it would have made this review more effective.
Overall, I thought Ralph did an excellent job reviewing the article. It is always refreshing to learn about new technological innovations and methods in the forensic field because they are highly relevant to our society when crimes occur on daily bases. By making the public aware of these advancements, criminals may give a second thought before committing their crimes.
Sophia Kocur
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/science/new-technique-can-identify-gender-from-a-fingerprint.html?ref=topics
Bhanoo, Sindya N. "New Technique Can Classify a Fingerprint as Male or Female." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Nov. 2015. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.
I thought that Ralph overall did a great job in his review of the article he read. I liked many aspects of Ralph’s review. First, I liked how he talked about the science behind determining whether a fingerprint belongs to a man or a woman, using amino acids. This made me, the reader, understand the science behind this accomplishment more and how they achieved it. Also, I liked how he referred to a scientist who gave his opinion on this science phenomenon, this made the review more realistic by talking about a person who was involved in this discovery. Lastly, I liked Ralph explained how this discovery will change society and the study of forensic science, this made us realize how truly important this discovery is and how it can change the world. Although there were many good aspects of this review, there were also some bad aspects.
One thing I think Ralph would have done better is explaining why this new test would not replace the DNA testing that is already being used. I find it difficult to understand the point of investing in this research if this innovation is not used to advance the technology we have now. Thus, I think if he gave the readers more information of this new innovation, it would have made this review more effective.
I enjoyed reading Ralph’s review of the article, and I think it is always interesting to read about how forensic scientists are constantly coming up and testing new methods for solving crimes and analyzing evidence It is good to see that these scientists strive for progress because it can make us confident that linking perpetrators to crimes will only get easier and more accurate.
Sophia Kocur
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/science/new-technique-can-identify-gender-from-a-fingerprint.html?ref=topics
Bhanoo, Sindya N. "New Technique Can Classify a Fingerprint as Male or Female." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Nov. 2015. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.
I thought that Ralph overall did a great job in his review of the article he read. I liked many aspects of Ralph’s review. First, I liked how he talked about the science behind determining whether a fingerprint belongs to a man or a woman, using amino acids. This made me, the reader, understand the science behind this accomplishment more and how they achieved it. Also, I liked how he referred to a scientist who gave his opinion on this science phenomenon, this made the review more realistic by talking about a person who was involved in this discovery. Lastly, I liked Ralph explained how this discovery will change society and the study of forensic science, this made us realize how truly important this discovery is and how it can change the world. Although there were many good aspects of this review, there were also some bad aspects.
One thing I think Ralph would have done better is explaining why this new test would not replace the DNA testing that is already being used. I find it difficult to understand the point of investing in this research if this innovation is not used to advance the technology we have now. Thus, I think if he gave the readers more information of this new innovation, it would have made this review more effective.
I enjoyed reading Ralph’s review of the article, and I think it is always interesting to read about how forensic scientists are constantly coming up and testing new methods for solving crimes and analyzing evidence It is good to see that these scientists strive for progress because it can make us confident that linking perpetrators to crimes will only get easier and more accurate.
Post a Comment