Kirchner, Lauren. “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 4 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection.
For this current event i decided to read the article Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted. In this article it discussed how the technology used to identify DNA evidence in court cases has changed from being way above the standard of the FBI to faulty microscope technique. With this new technique scientist are questioning its validity, however New York's medical examiner claims that the new method is well tested and had to be updated in order to keep up with the FBI’s changing standards. The article claims that of this new technique is indeed faulty, then many crime scene evidence would be unusable in court, hurting many cases.
This topic is relevant to modern issues because if the DNA being recorded is not correct, it will arise faulty accusations in court, along with further complicating hard cases. The scientist found a way however to make the samples more accurate, by testing the DNA in smaller groups they were able to focus more on these small groups then let's say a bigger jumbled group. THis may semi fix the problem of accuracy, however by looking at the DNA in smaller groups slows down the process and holds back many other steps in cases. Also by starting up a new process of getting evidence also slows down the scientist who have to spend time relearning on how to use this new type of technology, rather than just being able to stick with the old standard technique they already knew how to use.
While reading the article i think the author did a ok job on assessing the problem at hand, however there summery on the situation was very wordy and lengthy responses which just ended up being confusing to have to decipher in order to understand. However they did do a good job at bringing up examples of cases that became more difficult with the new technology, as well as giving examples as to what the overall effect is on society.
23 comments:
Upon reader Catherine's account regarding New York Times' Lauren Kirchner's, "Traces of Crime". There were three major things that I took away as the reviewer. I was very impressed the way she argued and proved her stance that while technology is becoming more advanced for our generation it's becoming clear that it is also can be considered "faulty" (Kirchner). I believe her stance is an accurate one because while technology is good asset to have to help solve crimes, that same technology does not have the margin for error that humans have when it comes to solving crimes with minimal technology help. Another point that I enjoyed in her write up was that she proved that with the new technology to improve "DNA evidence" (Kirchner) when it comes to help arguing a case in court because the concept to acknowledging and providing evidence for a possible crime with technology is a huge step forward for our society. A third thing that I took away from reading was the recognition that Catherine explained when she regarded that because DNA testing is its early stages and are still very complex to carry out. Scientists are being very persistent when it comes to "testing the DNA in smaller groups" (Kirchner) because as stated by Catherine in her review, I feel overly compelled to agree that with smaller samples, scientists have an increased result to having a more precise read on if the DNA they have sampled is the one that is incriminated when it comes criminal activity.
If I had to give if any constructive criticism for this article that Katherine wrote, I believe that there are two areas which I think she could improve. I think that she could have focused more on if there is any "flawed evidence" (Kirchner) to scientist in today's world to overly on technology to solve crimes. I believe that this was one of the biggest themes that was found in Lauren Kirchner's work because as the writer, she seems hesitant to the concept. A second area that I think could have both been more explored and been improved was the cause and effect relationship between using technology to solve crimes, yet to explore the possible aftermath and consequences that came out from using technology to help identify DNA; such as if the concept turned out successful and is it possible somehow that with the DNA evidence being displayed in court, could the same evidence be altered in attempt to cover up or to frame someone else for a crime that they possibly did not commit, which they could be "falsely convicted for" based upon unproven evidence.
In conclusion, the impression that I took away from reading both the article and Katherine's review is that even though technology is a great thing to have in life, there comes a time that its better for scientist to rely on their personal judgment because while errors might occur, they are much less likely to occur when scientist rely more on their logic and knowledge than to put doubtful evidence on the table, which could convict an innocent person for life for a crime they did not commit. The major reason I had in mind for reviewing this article is because for one; the reviewer used a very trust worthy news site in the New York Times and for two, I thought both Katherine's perspective and Lauren Kirchner's position on if technology is being overly used to solve crime. However, the most critical and overwhelming item that I took away and that has changed my view on life: is that even while technology is a great thing to have for entertainment and to have for an asset when doing work. I believe there comes a time that when analyzing possible DNA samples for crime scenes, sometimes its better and more precise to use human judgment to determine a crime, because while we are in 21st century, we are still in the early stages of the technology revolution and we have a long way too go before we can overly on computer technology to solve crimes completely.
Kirchner, Lauren. “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 4 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html
Blog was not cooperating so I just broke my review and the citation into two posts.
Catherine’s review of “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted” was a very interesting review. First of all, it really helped that she stated how exactly the DNA techniques have fallen below the FBI’s standard. In addition, the fact that she had a lot of details about why exactly it is bad that the DNA recording is faulty aided me in understanding this topic better and gave me some additional information about it. Finally, Catherine did a really good job on going even further into the topic and talking about how scientists have found a way to make the samples more accurate, which is by testing the DNA in smaller groups so it is easier to focus then with a bigger jumbled group.
Although this review was very interesting, one way it could have been made better is that Catherine could have gone back through the review and checked for spelling and grammar errors so that the review was more sophisticated. By reading it over, she could have avoided this problem and made her review more coherent. Moreover, I would have added more information on the FBI’s standard as she talked about it but never went into it. By adding one or two sentences about that topic she could have made her review even more thorough.
Overall, this review was captivating and thought-provoking. I had never heard about this problem with DNA techniques in New York, so I was intrigued when I read Catherine’s review. Thus, learning about this was very enlightening and taught me many new things. Reading this review made me realize that police techniques are not always very advanced and that there are some big problems with the way crimes are handled.
Catherine’s review of “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted” was a very interesting review. First of all, it really helped that she stated how exactly the DNA techniques have fallen below the FBI’s standard. In addition, the fact that she had a lot of details about why exactly it is bad that the DNA recording is faulty aided me in understanding this topic better and gave me some additional information about it. Finally, Catherine did a really good job on going even further into the topic and talking about how scientists have found a way to make the samples more accurate, which is by testing the DNA in smaller groups so it is easier to focus then with a bigger jumbled group.
Although this review was very interesting, one way it could have been made better is that Catherine could have gone back through the review and checked for spelling and grammar errors so that the review was more sophisticated. By reading it over, she could have avoided this problem and made her review more coherent. Moreover, I would have added more information on the FBI’s standard as she talked about it but never went into it. By adding one or two sentences about that topic she could have made her review even more thorough.
Overall, this review was captivating and thought-provoking. I had never heard about this problem with DNA techniques in New York, so I was intrigued when I read Catherine’s review. Thus, learning about this was very enlightening and taught me many new things. Reading this review made me realize that police techniques are not always very advanced and that there are some big problems with the way crimes are handled.
Kirchner, Lauren. “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted.” The New York Times, © 2017 The New York Times Company, 4 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
Catherine Faville reviewed the article, "Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted", by Lauren Kirchner. While the article utilized too many individual cases to simply state that the "the lab was adopting newer methods to align with changing F.B.I. standards" (Kirchner) and that those methods at the same time were coming under fire for their vallidity, she was able to decide that only these details were necessary for her one-paragraph summary and not become daunted by all of the testimonies that could in theory be included. Secondly, with all of the immediate implications that the article included for court cases, Catherine Faville instead raised a relevant question in all of science and society by synthesizing only the general impact on court cases with the statement, “Also by starting up a new process of getting evidence also slows down the scientist who have to spend time relearning on how to use this new type of technology, rather than just being able to stick with the old standard technique” (Faville). Taken together, the relevant question is, “Is it worth putting the credibility of an entire scientific field in doubt and possibly damaging the lives of thousands to more rapidly pursue a technology that is in demand?” Thirdly, Catherine Faville's analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the article are spot-on: while the court cases were helpful in giving a sense of real-life impact on people and in proving her general points about the flaws of the science, the inclusion of such great detail wasn't necessary in getting across the points Kirchner already made.
Although Faville clearly understood the implications, this review could have been further improved by better describing the science. Firstly, testing smaller groups of DNA didn’t help by increasing the “accuracy” (Faville) by focusing “more on these small groups then let's say a bigger jumbled group”, but rather the ability to examine smaller samples expanded the field of DNA evidence by increasing the variety of DNA samples that could be admitted in court. Secondly, she did not manage to name what the two techniques were, what new types of samples could be utilized due to each, and what their individual flaws were. Faville’s review essentially included two implication paragraphs but did not summarize the essential facts about the science. The most shocking aspect of the article for me was how the proponents of the two methods for analyzing small samples of DNA evidence were allowed to keep the unreliable testing and unsound statistical evidence secret from the public. Why would the court prevent these problems from being exposed and continue to pretend that all DNA evidence is reliable when the consequences of this not being true could incarcerate thousands of people?
Kirchner, Lauren. “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted.” The New York Times, © 2017 The New York Times Company, 4 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection.
www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection.
Catherine Faville reviewed the article, "Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted", by Lauren Kirchner. While the article utilized too many individual cases to simply state that the "the lab was adopting newer methods to align with changing F.B.I. standards" (Kirchner) and that those methods at the same time were coming under fire for their vallidity, she was able to decide that only these details were necessary for her one-paragraph summary and not become daunted by all of the testimonies that could in theory be included. Secondly, with all of the immediate implications that the article included for court cases, Catherine Faville instead raised a relevant question in all of science and society by synthesizing only the general impact on court cases with the statement, “Also by starting up a new process of getting evidence also slows down the scientist who have to spend time relearning on how to use this new type of technology, rather than just being able to stick with the old standard technique” (Faville). Taken together, the relevant question is, “Is it worth putting the credibility of an entire scientific field in doubt and possibly damaging the lives of thousands to more rapidly pursue a technology that is in demand?” Thirdly, Catherine Faville's analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the article are spot-on: while the court cases were helpful in giving a sense of real-life impact on people and in proving her general points about the flaws of the science, the inclusion of such great detail wasn't necessary in getting across the points Kirchner already made.
Although she clearly understood of the implications, this review could have been further improved by better describing the science. Firstly, testing smaller groups of DNA didn’t help by increasing the “accuracy” (Faville) by focusing “more on these small groups then let's say a bigger jumbled group”, but rather the ability to examine smaller samples expanded the field of DNA evidence by increasing the variety of DNA samples that could be admitted in court. Secondly, she did not manage to name what the two techniques were, what new types of samples could be utilized due to each, and what their individual flaws were. Faville’s review essentially included two implication paragraphs but did not summarize the essential facts about the science. The most shocking aspect of the article for me was how the proponents of the two methods for analyzing small samples of DNA evidence were allowed to keep the unreliable testing and unsound statistical evidence secret from the public. Why would the court prevent these problems from being exposed and continue to pretend that all DNA evidence is reliable when the consequences of this not being true could incarcerate thousands of people?
Kirchner, Lauren. “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted.” The New York Times, © 2017 The New York Times Company, 4 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection.
www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection.
(This is a revised version of the comment)
Catherine Faville reviewed the article, "Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted", by Lauren Kirchner. While the article utilized too many individual cases, testimonies and general quotes to prove the general points, Faville could still zone in on what was most important in two clean sentences: “With this new technique scientist are questioning its validity, however New York's medical examiner claims that the new method is well tested and had to be updated in order to keep up with the FBI’s changing standards. The article claims that of this new technique is indeed faulty, then many crime scene evidence would be unusable in court, hurting many cases” (Faville).
Secondly, with all of the immediate implications that the article included for court cases, Catherine Faville instead raised a relevant question in all of science and society by synthesizing only the general impact on court cases with the statement, “Also by starting up a new process of getting evidence also slows down the scientist who have to spend time relearning on how to use this new type of technology, rather than just being able to stick with the old standard technique” (Faville). Taken together, the relevant question is, “Is it worth putting the credibility of an entire scientific field in doubt and possibly damaging the lives of thousands to more rapidly pursue a technology that is in demand?” Thirdly, Catherine Faville's analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the article are spot-on: while the court cases were helpful in giving a sense of real-life impact on people and in proving her general points about the flaws of the science, the inclusion of such great detail wasn't necessary in getting across the points Kirchner already made.
This review could have been further improved by better describing the science, which is every bit as central to the article as the ethical implications. Firstly, testing smaller groups of DNA didn’t help by increasing the “accuracy” (Faville) by focusing “more on these small groups then let's say a bigger jumbled group”, but rather the ability to examine smaller samples expanded the field of DNA evidence by increasing the variety of DNA samples that could be admitted in court. Secondly, she did not manage to name what the two techniques were, what new types of samples could be utilized due to each, and what their individual flaws were.
The most shocking aspect of the article for me was how the proponents of the two methods for analyzing small samples of DNA evidence were allowed to keep the unreliable testing and unsound statistical evidence secret from the public. Why would the court prevent these problems from being exposed and continue to pretend that all DNA evidence is reliable when the consequences of this not being true could incarcerate thousands of people? The idea that the court could continue to take this action until 2016 when the methods have been under fire for years shows that not only will I ever view science to be as “objective” or “pure” as I used to, but that the court system is also more flawed than I originally expected.
I chose to read and review Catherine’s blog post on the article entitled, “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted”. I think that Catherine did a great job of summarizing the article in a clear and concise way, and her post was a great summary of the article as a whole. For example, “...it discussed how the technology used to identify DNA evidence in court cases has changed from being way above the standard of the FBI to faulty microscope technique. With this new technique scientist are questioning its validity, however New York's medical examiner claims that the new method is well tested and had to be updated in order to keep up with the FBI’s changing standards.” was a very concise way of stating the main ideas of the article, and problems that arose with the changing of technology. I enjoyed how she included the major points of the article, rather than including unnecessary facts. I also enjoyed how she went in-depth about how faulty DNA equipment could potentially hurt cases, like “...by looking at the DNA in smaller groups slows down the process and holds back many other steps in cases. Also by starting up a new process of getting evidence also slows down the scientist who have to spend time relearning on how to use this new type of technology, rather than just being able to stick with the old standard technique they already knew…”
Although I enjoyed reading Catherine’s blog post, there are a few things that could be altered to improve it. At some points in the review, I was confused because of improper grammar and sentence structure problems, which made it difficult to read. In the third paragraph she states, “While reading the article i think the author did a ok job on assessing the problem at hand, however there summery on the situation was very wordy and lengthy responses,” which was slightly confusing. Also, quotes could have been added from the article to strengthen her review.
From reading this article and blog post, I was able to learn about the new technology being introduced to the FBI. I found it interesting learning about all of the potential risks of introducing new technology, like how a scientist might have to spend extra time learning how to use than the equipment, rather than focusing on the case. I chose to read Catherine’s blog post because I had not heard anything about the changing of equipment in the FBI, and was curious as to what they were changing. After reading Catherine’s blog post, and realizing the potential impact of switching equipment, I will now pay more attention to what is going on with our investigative teams.
Catherine’s blog post:
Faville, Catherine. “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted.”Blogger, 8 Sept. 2017, bhscsi.blogspot.com/2017/09/catherine-faville-mr.html. https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2017/09/catherine-faville-mr.html
Article:
Kirchner, Lauren. “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection.
Alexander Plaza
Mr.Ippolito
9/10/17
Forensics Comment
Kirchner, Lauren. “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 4 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
Catherine, I read your review of “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted” by Lauren Kirchner and I thought that you did a good job. I thought that you did a nice job with your summary of the article. I was not confused about your topic. This is good for the readers since it creates a understanding of the subject matter for your review. Also, I like that your summary is brief. It does not bore the reader with useless information and you are able to move to the main point of your review faster. Finally, I like that you are able to make an important connection to how forensic science is having greater effects, especially in court cases.
Although your article was good, there are some things that you could improve on. First, I think you could add a direct quote from a contributor or scientist to show exactly how the new technology is affecting the scientists or what there first hand opinions on the developments are. It would provide credibility to the article as well as different viewpoints and new knowledge. Also, I believe that you could improve some minor grammatical errors. This would stop the reader’s attention from being drawn away from the content of the review towards the grammar.
Overall, I enjoyed your review. I was not aware of the faulty standards of DNA techniques within New York and I’m concerned because I would like to have our courts to have reliable information and resources when they are needed from scientists.
Catherine analyzed the article called Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted. What she did really well in this analysis is that she kept it informative, but did not make it too complex. This was good for someone who has just started to learn about forensics and hasn't acquired the information skillset and the understanding to really comprehend the more complex articles and topics, so considering my position currently, it was very good. She also told me good and the bad aspects about this new technology. While it is more accurate than the old way of doing it, it is much slower and requires scientists to relearn how to do it. This was very helpful because she made the situation much clearer this way. She also explained the effects of this new technology and how it will affect not only cases to come, but previous cases which helped me create a context for it.
There are some ways she could improve it. Even though it is about how the New York DNA testing became faulty, it does not go into how it become faulty or if it is still faulty or what kind of issues there were. She did not provide the information that the actual article was about and she did not provide information about the faults within it beyond that there are problems. She also could have had quotes in her analysis, because this would have helped with the substance as well as the validity.
What i thought was really interesting was the realization that there is still a lot of work to be done and a lot of work to be done in the forensic field. Even though we see our science as ground breaking we have to also acknowledge that even though it is insanely helpful and has helped the field a lot, we are far from perfect and there is still a long way to go.
I read Evelyn's review of the article "Smog Chokes Delhi, Leaving Residents 'Cowering by Our Air Purifiers.'" I enjoyed reading her review for three reasons. The first reason is that she chose to review an article that I have a genuine interest in. This kept me entertained throughout her review. The second reason is that she wrote a very good summary of the article and issue at hand. The third reason that I enjoyed her article is that is quoted the article which added lots of credibility to her argument.
Although there was lots of good aspects of her there were two aspects that needed improvement. The first was that she could have included more quotations from the article as she mentioned that the article was mostly quotations. Also, she could have included why the government of India allowed the pollution to get so high in the first place. I chose to read this review because I have friends in New Delhi, and I have been hearing about this issue for some time now.
Also, when I spent some time in New Delhi over the summer, the air and smog was overwhelmingly strong.
In this report Catherine Faville was able to accurately summarize the article, “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted.” This article was mostly about how the standards of the FBI technology used to identify DNA differs from the technology used to identify DNA in court cases. It changed from this high technology to questionable microscopes techniques. Catherine Faville did a good job touching upon the important point of this article, describing how technology changed. In addition to this, Catherine was able to talk about the relevance of this article, saying that this is relevant to our modern times because if the DNA scanning is faulty especially in court, false accusations will arise and complicates the case. A last thing Catherine did well, was accurately criticize what the author could have done to make the article better. I agree with Catherine and saying that the article was too long and he could have summed up the important points in just a few paragraphs. Having the article be longer and adding unnecessary detail caused the article to be confusing and hard to follow for the readers. Although Catherine did a good job addressing the main points, I think she could have made it better if she pulled a few quotes from the article to give the review more detail and evidence. I think it would have been a good idea when summarizing the article to pull a quote on the author's opinion on this topic. Another thing catherine could have done was improve her grammar. ALthough most of it was well written there were a few parts she could have improved which would have made the review better. For Instance when typing the word, I, she did not capitalize this. One thing I was impressed with from reading this article and review was how harmful this could be do any of us. Like i mentioned before, Having faulty equipment can lead to serious problems and can highly affect court cases. Overall Catherine did a great job summarizing this article and touched upon the important notes.
Kirchner, Lauren. “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted.” The New York Times, © 2017 The New York Times Company, 4 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
For the first current event this year, Catharine Faville wrote about how New York’s investigations have become inaccurate. The first thing I like about Catherine’s review is how she first presented the article she was reviewing. She did not use any of her own bias when re-telling what happened in the article. I also like how she summarized the article without being too wordy or putting in to many details that are not needed. The article is extremely long so it would be very easy to make her summary of the article long too. I also like how she referred to the article as ‘claiming’ to say something because it could not necessarily be true. It is important not to trust every single thing the article states. I also like how she took the article to how it is relevant to modern issues in society. This is important because without summarizing why it is relevant, the article doesn’t matter.
One way the review could have been better is if it had been proofread before being published because there are many grammatical errors that could have been easily fixed if it had been read over. Another way the review could have been better is if she had written more on what the article had done right and wrong instead of writing more on the summarization of the article.
I don’t think this is the best review I have ever read but I think Catherine did the job that was at hand by explaining the topic, saying why the topic was important, and concluding with problems. I think all of these were said with accuracy.
Kirchner, Lauren. “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted.” The New York Times, © 2017 The New York Times Company, 4 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
For Catherine's review of the New York Times article I enjoyed and learned many new things. First, I liked how Catharine was able to share her ideas in her review very precisely and it was easy to understand her point. Secondly, I think that this was a good review and choice of article by Catherine because she states how relevant the article and its practices for modern day DNA testing. Lastly, I think this review was good and valid because she backed up her thoughts by using to passage correctly.
Although, there could be some things that could be added to the review to be more complete. For example, I feel that Catherine could add more quotes from the article to help strengthen her points. Also, I feel that you could possibly get another view of the article by doing more outside research and try to find what other scientists feel about the procedures. ALong with this, there were some minor spelling and grammar problems.
Overall I was impressed by your review and learned many things that I found interesting. One example was that this faulty information is still being used in courts and sometimes can mean a huge difference in a court decision.
Kirchner, Lauren. “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted.” The New York Times, © 2017 The New York Times Company, 4 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
In this review Catherine was able to summarize a long and complex article, Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted, without making her review seem wordy yet still getting the important information to the reader. Another thing that I liked in this review was the part on the article being relevant today. I liked this part because Catherine’s examples of problems that could go wrong are very possible and makes the article seem very relevant. Catherine also did a very good job explaining the topic of the Article it sounded like she really new what she talked about which made it easy for the reader to understand the topic.
Although this review was very well written there are two thing that could be improved on. In the review Catherine seems to know what she is talking about but it would have been nice to have some direct evidence from the article, like a quote, that the techniques are tainted. Another way to improve the review would be giving more background information for example I didn’t think the FBI was changing equipment for DNA testing.
I was impressed by this review because I learned a lot from reading it. It gave information out without boring me. The topic was very interesting and the review showed how it is very relevant right now.
Kirchner, Lauren. “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted.” The New York Times, © 2017 The New York Times Company, 4 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
In this review Catherine was able to summarize a long and complex article, Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted, without making her review seem wordy yet still getting the important information to the reader. Another thing that I liked in this review was the part on the article being relevant today. I liked this part because Catherine’s examples of problems that could go wrong are very possible and makes the article seem very relevant. Catherine also did a very good job explaining the topic of the Article it sounded like she really new what she talked about which made it easy for the reader to understand the topic.
Although this review was very well written there are two thing that could be improved on. In the review Catherine seems to know what she is talking about but it would have been nice to have some direct evidence from the article, like a quote, that the techniques are tainted. Another way to improve the review would be giving more background information for example I didn’t think the FBI was changing equipment for DNA testing.
I was impressed by this review because I learned a lot from reading it. It gave information out without boring me. The topic was very interesting and the review showed how it is very relevant right now.
Kirchner, Lauren. “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted.” The New York Times, © 2017 The New York Times Company, 4 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
In this review Catherine was able to summarize a long and complex article, Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted, without making her review seem wordy yet still getting the important information to the reader. Another thing that I liked in this review was the part on the article being relevant today. I liked this part because Catherine’s examples of problems that could go wrong are very possible and makes the article seem very relevant. Catherine also did a very good job explaining the topic of the Article it sounded like she really new what she talked about which made it easy for the reader to understand the topic.
Although this review was very well written there are two thing that could be improved on. In the review Catherine seems to know what she is talking about but it would have been nice to have some direct evidence from the article, like a quote, that the techniques are tainted. Another way to improve the review would be giving more background information for example I didn’t think the FBI was changing equipment for DNA testing.
I was impressed by this review because I learned a lot from reading it. It gave information out without boring me. The topic was very interesting and the review showed how it is very relevant right now.
Kirchner, Lauren. “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted.” The New York Times, © 2017 The New York Times Company, 4 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
In this review Catherine was able to summarize a long and complex article, Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted, without making her review seem wordy yet still getting the important information to the reader. Another thing that I liked in this review was the part on the article being relevant today. I liked this part because Catherine’s examples of problems that could go wrong are very possible and makes the article seem very relevant. Catherine also did a very good job explaining the topic of the Article it sounded like she really new what she talked about which made it easy for the reader to understand the topic.
Although this review was very well written there are two thing that could be improved on. In the review Catherine seems to know what she is talking about but it would have been nice to have some direct evidence from the article, like a quote, that the techniques are tainted. Another way to improve the review would be giving more background information for example I didn’t think the FBI was changing equipment for DNA testing.
I was impressed by this review because I learned a lot from reading it. It gave information out without boring me. The topic was very interesting and the review showed how it is very relevant right now.
Kirchner, Lauren. “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted.” The New York Times, © 2017 The New York Times Company, 4 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
In this review Catherine was able to summarize a long and complex article, Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted, without making her review seem wordy yet still getting the important information to the reader. Another thing that I liked in this review was the part on the article being relevant today. I liked this part because Catherine’s examples of problems that could go wrong are very possible and makes the article seem very relevant. Catherine also did a very good job explaining the topic of the Article it sounded like she really new what she talked about which made it easy for the reader to understand the topic.
Although this review was very well written there are two thing that could be improved on. In the review Catherine seems to know what she is talking about but it would have been nice to have some direct evidence from the article, like a quote, that the techniques are tainted. Another way to improve the review would be giving more background information for example I didn’t think the FBI was changing equipment for DNA testing.
I was impressed by this review because I learned a lot from reading it. It gave information out without boring me. The topic was very interesting and the review showed how it is very relevant right now.
Kirchner, Lauren. “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted.” The New York Times, © 2017 The New York Times Company, 4 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
In this review Catherine was able to summarize a long and complex article, Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted, without making her review seem wordy yet still getting the important information to the reader. Another thing that I liked in this review was the part on the article being relevant today. I liked this part because Catherine’s examples of problems that could go wrong are very possible and makes the article seem very relevant. Catherine also did a very good job explaining the topic of the Article it sounded like she really new what she talked about which made it easy for the reader to understand the topic.
Although this review was very well written there are two thing that could be improved on. In the review Catherine seems to know what she is talking about but it would have been nice to have some direct evidence from the article, like a quote, that the techniques are tainted. Another way to improve the review would be giving more background information for example I didn’t think the FBI was changing equipment for DNA testing.
I was impressed by this review because I learned a lot from reading it. It gave information out without boring me. The topic was very interesting and the review showed how it is very relevant right now.
Kirchner, Lauren. “Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted.” The New York Times, © 2017 The New York Times Company, 4 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/nyregion/dna-analysis-evidence-new-york-disputed-techniques.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
In Catherine's review of the New York Times article,"Traces of Crime: How New York’s DNA Techniques Became Tainted", I learned many new things about the way new DNA testing effects many other things. She does a good job addressing the problem we have today in the world of DNA testing. I like how she brought up the point that if a DNA test isn't as valid as it should be the wrong people may be accused in court. Catherine also stated that scientists have been working on a more accurate way of testing the DNA, but it may take longer to process the DNA and learn the results from the test. I think the review was good because she brought up important points and backed it up by using information she found in the passage. However I feel as though she could have added a quote from a scientist on why he/she may or may not agree with this new way of testing. Also I wish there was something in the review on why they changed the DNA testing in the first place.
In the end I was impressed by how Catherine explained the impact of the new form of DNA testing on the scientists. Instead of sticking to the old way of DNA testing now they have a longer process in finding DNA testing results.
Post a Comment