Martha Thomas
Current Events: Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction by Ashley Southall
10/19/2017
Southall, Ashley. “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2017,
“Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction” by Ashley Southall is a well written article that discusses the benefits of using DNA based Phenotyping in criminal cases, despite controversies. DNA Phenotyping is a process where scientists use traces of DNA in order to determine a deceased person’s race, age, and new technologies have the power to even predict facial structure. This process is often thought of as inaccurate and cases that rely heavily on this type of science are often met with protests from defense or civil liberties lawyers. But phenotyping has been instrumental in identifying the body of a victim of a murder in Bushwick, Brooklyn, North Carolina, and many other places. Phenotyping is becoming increasingly accurate Dr. Yaniv Erlich of Columbia University,who described this process as “on the verge of science fiction.” Still, scientists tend to use this process to rule out previously though suspects or victims, instead of identifying entirely new people linked to the crime.
This article effectively connected this forensic technology to courtroom ethics. While it is important for criminal scientists to use all available technologies to solve crime, it is also important for them to use their discretion and not present inaccurate Phenotype sketches in courtroom. Even though the author of this article believed strongly in Phenotype technology, I believe that there is reasonable cause for this technology’s ban or required licensure in many states, and that it should continue to be regulated in order to protect citizens’ from unruly trials.
This article gave strong examples of murder cases where Phenotyping played important roles in victim identification: Bushwick and Brooklyn. However, this article failed to explain the specific clues that scientists look for in DNA to determine what a person might have looked like. I am especially curious as to what the clues that indicate facial structure are. This article would be improved if it included information and details about the scientific process of Phenotyping.
13 comments:
Southall, Ashley. “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/nyregion/dna-phenotyping-new-york-police.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collectionMartha did a great job reviewing the article “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction” In a well written summary. She was effective in explaining to those not familiar what DNA Phenotyping is. Martha included a wealth of information on the topic that gave me a lot of insight into what she was talking about. Martha also did a great job relating DNA phenotyping to courtroom ethics.
Martha could have created more of a narrative when reviewing this article, as well as making it a little longer. Overall though I could not find any big problems in her review.
I enjoyed learning about what DNA phenotyping and its relation to court cases, as well as learning about the conflicting opinions and controversy surrounding the banning of its use for court cases.
I liked how Martha presented the idea of the article very briefly and clearly, making it very easy to understand. Another thing she did very well was thinking critically about the article and not simply believing what the author believed. In her critique she clearly considered the faults in the article and pointed out reasons why this new technology might not be as great as it sounds. I also thought that she posed some good questions about further information and the future of this technology as a forensic tool. There wasn’t really anything I disliked about the review. Nice job Martha! One thing that surprised me was that the sketches could be presented as evidence in a courtroom, considering that the process is not extremely reliable and is more suited to helping ID a victim than to helping catch a suspect. It seems like something that should be used to assist other forensic techniques, rather than hard evidence at a trial.
Southall, Ashley. “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/nyregion/dna-phenotyping-new-york-police.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
Martha’s review of “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction” was a very interesting review. First of all, it really helped that she stated the exact places, Bushwick, Brooklyn, North Carolina, where phenotyping helped find identify the. In addition, the fact that she had a lot of details about what exactly phenotyping is aided me in understanding this topic better and gave me some additional information about it. Finally, Martha did a really good job in making this review quite thorough by adding a quote from Dr. Yaniv Erlich of Columbia University, regarding his thoughts about phenotyping.
Although this review was very interesting, one way it could have been made better is that Martha could have gone back through the review and elaborated a bit more on who made this phenotyping technique and when it started being used so that the review was more sophisticated. By reading it over and adding a few sentences, she could have avoided this problem and made her review more thought out. Moreover, I would have added more information on the reasons why this technique can cause unjust trials. 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 this type of technique, so I was intrigued when I read Martha’s review. Thus, learning about this was very enlightening and taught me many new things. Reading this review made me realize that with the new DNA techniques, victims that did not have any previous photographs can still be accurately represented with phenotyping.
Maggie Miller
October 25th, 2017
Ippolito A/B odd
Current Event 6
Southall, Ashley. “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/nyregion/dna-phenotyping-new-york-police.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
Martha Thomas submitted a review of the article, “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call it Science Fiction.” Martha did an excellent job of organizing her review into three paragraphs, each with a main focus. This made it easy to navigate through the review and absorb the given information. She also, included a detailed description of what DNA phenotyping is and explained to the readers the information needed to understand the topics discussed later. As well, Martha included a helpful connection from the article to our lives. This helped gain readers interest because they were able to connect it back to their individual lives.
However, Martha lacked some factual evidence in her description and it would have been nice to include some direct quotes from the article. Getting quotes from experts and interviewers in the article helps support the claims made. Second, Martha could have included a better description of the article in her first paragraph, it was a bit brief and I felt that there was valuable information from the article left out.
Nonetheless, Martha’s review was very interesting to read and I learned a lot from it. I had not learned much about the process of Phenotyping, and it was interesting to hear about it.
Mairead Cain
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics
25 October 2017
Southall, Ashley. “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/nyregion/dna-phenotyping-new-york-police.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
Martha did a very nice job with her current event review on the article “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction,” by Ashley Southall. I decided to review her report as the title of the original current event was rather intriguing. There are many good techniques she uses throughout the report. One example is how she explains what, exactly, DNA based phenotyping it. This gives readers a crucial insight on the background information surrounding the current event. Another aspect of Martha’s writing that was done rather well was when she explained how there are common inaccuracies detected in the DNA phenotyping process. She explains this because it is important to note that many do not support DNA phenotyping. Lastly, I appreciated how Martha discussed the flaws of the article and how it often was not descriptive enough. This is important because it displays the fact that the author of the original report could have been more descriptive.
Overall, Martha’s report was extremely interesting and informative, however there are some details that she could tweak and add to make the current event report even that much better.
I recommend that she adds some quotes to her current event review. This would have supplied readers with a better understanding of the information being discussed. Also, she could have discussed her own opinion on how this advanced technology will affect the future of Forensic science impacting court cases. This would have been interesting as this new scientific advancement will most likely be rather controversial in the years to come.
Martha’s report was very informative and I learned extensively about DNA phenotyping is becoming incredibly more advanced and accurate. Before reading the report, I had little knowledge about how DNA phenotyping could affect the way Forensic science affects the courtroom. Countless people across the world could be affected by the new advancement in technology, and after reading Martha’s report, I see now that it is important that the world is further educated on the subject at hand.
Olivia Lewis
Forensics A/B odd
10/19/17
Current Event 6 comment
Southall, Ashley. “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/nyregion/dna-phenotyping-new-york-police.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
Martha Thomas’s review of the article “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call it Science Fiction” was very well written. She clearly defined what the main point of the article was, the debate on whether or not DNA Phenotyping should be accepted as an accurate forensic method to determine characteristics about someone based on their DNA. Martha also did a very good job in showing the author’s argument as well as the arguments against this method. Finally, in the critique Martha fairly pointed out the faults in the article and showed both sides of this argument.
While this critique is very informative and interesting, I think that if Martha had added some quotes from people on both sides of the argument then her critique would have been more substantial. Also, if background information was included on phenotyping and the merits of it, this critique would have been more informative.
While there were many interesting facts that I learned from this critique, I think that the most shocking thing that I learned from this was that a general idea of facial structure can be determined from DNA.
Jack Harwood
CE 6
Southall, Ashley. “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/nyregion/dna-phenotyping-new-york-police.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
Martha Thomas submitted a review of the article, “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call it Science Fiction.” Martha did a great job summarizing the story and providing lots of background details on the case being discussed. You also supplied the reader with very informative details and specific statistics. Lastly, I felt that you did a great job at explaining why it is relevant in modern society by explaining what forensic scientists could do wrong.
I believe your review could have been significantly better if your writing flowed better. It was slightly choppy and it felt like you were just listing facts. However, that being said, it allowed me to remember and understand your review more clearly. Also, I would have like to see more quotes from the author. It validates your points and with ethos, it makes your review more credible.
I was very surprised and interested in learning about the process of phenotyping as I had never really heard or learned about it before.
Timmy McGrath
Forensics
Bronxville School
October 25th, 2017
Southall, Ashley. “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/nyregion/dna-phenotyping-new-york-police.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
Martha reviewed the article “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction.” Martha did a great job keeping it short and to the point which kept the reader engaged in the review. She also did a great job pointing out things that could be faulty with the technology and how it could fail. She was able to explain what DNA based phenotyping is very easily and very efficiently which helped the reader understand easier.
Martha could have included some more valuable information from the article. There were some key pieces missing that would have helped the reader understand a little better. She also should add quotes. Quotes are a key piece that help the reader understand better. They also help the review flow better.
I learned a lot from Martha’s review but one thing that really caught my eye was the DNA based phenotyping. It was a very informative review and helped me learn about using DNA to sketch what victims look like.
Andy Goldbaum 10/28/17 Current Event Comment Forensics
Southall, Ashley. “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction.”The New York Times, © 2017 The New York Times Company, 19 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/nyregion/dna-phenotyping-new-york-police.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic+Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection.
Although New York Times article, “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction”, by Ashley Southall, gives a lot of detail into the debate on not just the cost-benefit analysis of phenotyping technology’s use in criminal cases but about that of other new techniques brought about by the expansion of DNA evidence as a whole; my classmate Martha Thomas managed to remain concise in the summary portion of her review by only describing the particular controversies that surround phenotyping. By doing this, it is clear that Thomas has a solid enough understanding that the main idea of this article is specifically about phenotyping, or using DNA evidence to predict physical characteristics of suspects and victims. Well many reviewers fail to answer the question in the second paragraph by not describing a topic related to humanity, Thomas in the first two sentences of her paragraph immediately answered it by describing how even though it is tempting for scientists to use new technologies like this to more easily make a conviction, the question of “courtroom ethics” still requires them to use discretion. Since taking into account ethical concerns in court is instrumental in not infringing on a human right, or that of a fair trial, Thomas’s connection to this successfully connects her topic to humanity. Finally, Thomas’s critique of the article is well-supported by evidence (or lack thereof) from the article: she refers to examples from the article to describe how the claims about phenotyping is well-supported, while also stating where the article lacked evidence in a topic that readers would find interesting. Thomas’s statements being well-supported shows that she thoroughly read the article.
Despite the fact that Thomas answered the question about how her topic connects to humanity, her second paragraph could have been made even better if she decided to describe the controversies around the recent expansion of DNA evidence as a whole, including to trace ancestry. By making her summary centered around phenotyping, she gave herself more room to thoroughly support her claim in the second paragraph with this other evidence, but did not take this opportunity. Another part of Thomas’s article that could be improved was in supporting the references she made to the Phenotyping technology being inaccurate. Although she references this both in her summary and when she says she believes that, “there is reasonable cause for the technology’s ban”, she does not refer back to the text to describe why there are critiques of its accuracy.
What was shocking about the content of this article is how using genetic information to infer physical characteristics about a person hasn’t already been accomplished and was only thought to be done by scientists as recently as as within this decade. Since DNA has genes that code for specific features, I don’t understand how it was not an obvious step to thoroughly study genes, what they code for, and how to use it to predict what people will look like. In reading this article, I learned that despite how many specific fields have been applied to forensics over the past few decades, none of these fields are even close to being studied to completion.
Kelsey Ravesloot
Southall, Ashley. “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/nyregion/dna-phenotyping-new-york-police.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
Martha reviewed the article, “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction.” I liked how Martha made the review short and straight to the point, she did not include any unnecessary facts that could confuse the reader. I also liked how she included a detailed background on the top, which makes the review easier to understand. Lastly, I enjoyed Martha’s critique on the article. Some people forget to give one, but Martha did a good job on including what the author did wrong.
One thing that Martha could improve on is including quotes from the article to pull in more facts that could be very useful when reading the review. Another thing that I wish she included more of is how this affects our society.
Overall I thought Martha’s review was well written and easy to read. One thing that stood out to me is the process of phenotyping, which I did not know much about before reading her review.
In her review of “using DNA to sketch what victims look like; Some call it Science Fiction” by Ashley Southall, Martha did a great job of explaining what DNA would be used for and how it would be used to predict facial structure.She also did well in giving her own opinion of the matter and how she believes it could impact society. I also like how Martha has harsh on the article and said how it lacked data. Marth’s review could have been made better by including more direct quotes from the article to back up her thoughts. I also think Martha could have elaborated more on their thoughts as the review was a bit short. Overall, I think Martha picked a very interesting topic that one day could become a normal technology or be cast out if it proves to be inaccurate.
Ayten El-Hennawy
Ippolito D Even
Current Event 6
Southall, Ashley. “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/nyregion/dna-phenotyping-new-york-police.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
Martha’s review of the article “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction.” was very well written and interesting to read. I liked how Martha summarized the whole story to make it easier for the reader to catch up with what exactly was happening. I also liked how she included some details throughout her review to strengthen her view. Lastly, I think she did an awesome job using quotes throughout her review.
I think Martha’s review could’ve improved if her summary wasn’t as brief, i think she could have elaborated a little bit more on the details included in the actual article. I also think she could’ve related this topic more to our current society rather than only stating her opinion.
I think this article/review was very interesting to read as I’ve never heard about Phenotyping before and learning about something new is always intriguing.
Southall, Ashley. “Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/nyregion/dna-phenotyping-new-york-police.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
Martha did a very good job in presenting the information in the article in a clear way which I appreciated. She really looked at what the article said and didn’t just blindly agree with what author said which was good. She gave a really good description of what DNA phenotyping is which was vital to understanding parts of the article. She also had several statistics which added to the legitimacy of her review. At certain points however it felt like she was just listing statistics which made it hard to follow. She also could have added some more quotes from the author. Overall I really liked Martha’s review and I learned a lot from it, especially about DNA phenotyping.
Post a Comment