Charlotte Dotson
Mr. Ippolito
September 23, 2019
Current Event 3
Murphy, Heather. “Why This Scientist Keeps Receiving Packages of Serial Killers' Hair.” The New
York Times, The New York Times, 16 Sept. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/science/hair-dna-murder.html?rref=collection/timestopic/ForensicScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection.
In this article, “Why This Scientist Keep Recieving Packages of Serial Killers’ Hair” Journalist Heather Murphy describes a scientific breakthrough in forensic science. Ed Green, a paleogeneticist at the Univeristy of Califonria, has discovered a way to match hair strangs to a suspect.
In the past, scientists have only been able to match a hait strand to a suspect if the hair contained a root. Though most people lose 50-100 strands of hair a day, very few of the strands have a root making them virtually useless to forensic scientsis. Now, with Ed Green’s discovery, law enforcement can finally put the baundance of hair strands they have collected to good use.
Over the past 18 months, Mr. Green has been working with law enfrocement to solve previosuly unsolvable cases using his hair identification tactic. Though he is not at liberty to say who specifically he is working with or what cases he is working on, Mr. Green is working with the FBI. The effectivness of this new technique is an important breakthrough in forensic science, but it has led to privacy conerns. If non law enforcement personell learn to identify people by a strand of hair it will be practically impossible to move throughout the world without leaving a trace. Additionally, because the technique is relatively new its rate of accuracy is not known. There are concerns among the scientific community that the use of hair identification could lead to wrongful convictions.
The one change I would make is that Heather Murphy did not provide clear details as to how exactly scientists can use hair strands to identify people. She briefly touched on the subject, but I wish she had gone into more depth. I found this article to be very interesting. I, along with most people, understand that our fingerprints can be used to identify us, but I never thought of hair in the same way. On the one hand it is advntageous to law enforcement and citizen’s safety that more crimnals will be caught, however I understand the privacy concern. It is midly concerning that with a single strand of hair, law enforcement can tell where a person has been. If this method is found to be accurate and upheld in court, I predict it would prove to be a useful and frequently used test.
9 comments:
Logan Glick
Forensics
Current Event
9/24/19
Current Event 3:
Charlotte Dodson
Murphy, Heather. “Why This Scientist Keeps Receiving Packages of Serial Killers' Hair.” The New
York Times, The New York Times, 16 Sept. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/science/hair-dna-murder.html?rref=collection/timestopic/ForensicScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection.
Charlotte explains how a scientist has had a major breakthrough in forensics. Ed Green, a paleogeneticist at the University of California has discovered how to match hair to a suspect without the root. This is important because before this discovery people could not match a hair sample to a suspect if it did not have a root. She explains how Green is working with the FBI to find a suspect in a previously cold case. This is so amazing because it can help solve a case that would have never been solved if not for Green’s discovery. Also, Charlotte explains how this new discovery can also be a bad thing. Since it is such a new technique many are concerned that it may not be too accurate yet. Scientists believe that this technique could lead to wrongful accusations of people who did nothing wrong. Charlotte did a fantastic job of outlying the pros and cons of this new discovery and gave a great background on what they are.
Charlotte overall did a fantastic job on this assignment but there are some areas where she could improve. For example, “The one change I would make is that Heather Murphy did not provide clear details as to how exactly scientists can use hair strands to identify people.” this sentence is too vague and needs to be improved. I think that the article did show ways in which the scientists can use this new technique. I think she needs to say how the article can change and not why. “It is mildly concerning that with a single strand of hair, law enforcement can tell where a person has been,” in this sentence Charlotte needs to add an example of why it is concerning for people's privacy.
I think this article is so interesting because it will change the war forensic scientists forever look at cases. I love when there are developments in this field because it means we can stop more bad guys. I learned how important it is to analyze hair at a crime scene because it can point to a suspect. I think this article was amazing and Charlotte did a great job writing about it.
Clara DeMagalhaes Current Event #3
Murphy, Heather. “Why This Scientist Keeps Receiving Packages of Serial Killers' Hair.” The New
York Times, The New York Times, 16 Sept. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/science/hair-dna-murder.html?rref=collection/timestopic/ForensicScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection.
Charlotte’s review on the article “Why This Scientist Keeps Receiving Packages of Serial Killers' Hair” was very informative. One aspect of the review that was done well was that the summary was very clear and concise, getting to the point right off the bat and making sure the reader understands the subject well. The critique given to the article was something that I found to be well thought out and well-reasoned. Looking back at the article, I can definitely agree with Charlotte about how it would have been better if the author went into more detail about the process of identification. Lastly, I like how Charlotte added her own thoughts on the topic. It made the review feel more personal and complete.
While the majority of the review was very well done, there were a couple of things that I feel like could’ve been improved on. For starters, while it was still very legible, there were a few issues with spelling and grammar that may impact someone’s ability to fully understand what’s happening. A spell-check program is a way to address that. Additionally, the formatting was a little bit confusing. It was a bit hard to tell what part of the review was the summary and what part talked about the importance of this discovery to society. However, this can also be fixed just by shuffling around some sentences and organizing them into certain paragraphs.
I found this topic extremely intriguing and believe that a breakthrough like this is definitely something that will ensure more secure and supported results in a forensic investigation. It’s very interesting to learn about how even the most minuscule traces left behind as criminals, such as hair, can lead to massive progress in a case. I think that this will make me interested in keeping up with scientific updates on topics such as these.
I read an article by Murphy, Heather named “Why This Scientist Keeps Receiving Packages of Serial Killers' Hair”, reported on by Charlotte Dotson. The first thing I believe she did well was in her introduction. She refers back to the past, signifying that things were not as advanced and then transitioning into a current explanation. To be more specific, she said “scientists have only been able to match a hair strand to a suspect if the hair contained a root” and then went on to explain that now, “law enforcement can finally put the abundance of hair strands they have collected to good use”. Apart from the great transitions, I enjoyed the fact that she put a lot of thought into what she would change about Heather Murphy’s writing. She argued that Murphy did not go into depth about her research about how exactly scientists can use hair strands to identify people. The last thing I think Ms. Dotson did well in her review was list a prediction. I like that she transitioned from the past, to the present, to the future. She was thinking ahead and forming ideas of her own based on her reading and research.
Her review is enjoyable, but I feel it lacks in some areas. For one, the piece was missing some key details that would entice the reader a but more and provide more information to someone who hasn't read the article. For example, she says “There are concerns among the scientific community that the use of hair identification could lead to wrongful convictions.'' I felt that she could have specified what those concerns were. As a second point, I felt that she could have elaborated on Ed Green’s discovery a bit more. I felt as though it was a big part of the research spoken about in the article, but she did not pay much attention to explaining it.
In all, I felt that Charlotte did a great job with her article reading and review. It was easy to understand and concise. I found the article interesting and her words made me feel compelled to look up the article itself and read it myself. This has been my favorite current event so far and I look forward to reading more like these.
Eve Balseiro
Current Event Comment 3
Murphy, Heather. “Why This Scientist Keeps Receiving Packages of Serial Killers' Hair.” The New
York Times, The New York Times, 16 Sept. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/science/hair-dna-murder.html?rref=collection/timestopic/ForensicScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection.
Charlotte’s synopsis and analysis of “Why This Scientist Keeps Receiving Packages of Serial Killers’ Hair” is detailed and well-articulated. Firstly, I was struck by how well Charlotte summarized. She made a very complicated advancement very easy to follow. Secondly, I was impressed by how Charlotte incorporated both sides of the argument. She explained potential privacy concerns and well as accuracy concerns, both things had not even crossed my mind. Lastly, Charlotte’s criticisms of the article were extremely accurate. Specifically, I agreed with her comment about the author’s lack of in-depth description of how scientists use the hair to identify people.
Though I found Charlotte’s review thorough and well-written, there is room for improvement. For example, if she had elaborated on other ways this new advancement may be harmful, she would have analysed further in-depth. Similarly, I find that reviews can be clearest when they have many examples, which Charlotte’s did not.
Overall, Charlotte’s summary successfully encapsulated the article and she provided great analysis. I had previously thought that any hairs left at a crime scene were incredibly helpful to a case and I hadn't;t realized that they needed to include the root. This article changes my perspective because not only do I know more about hairs found at crime scenes but now I know fully understand how the identification of hairs can change crime scenes completely.
Esther Devitt
9/25/19
Forensics D-Odd
Current Event #3
Murphy, Heather. “Why This Scientist Keeps Receiving Packages of Serial Killers' Hair.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Sept. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/science/hair-dna-murder.html?rref=collection/timestopic/ForensicScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection.
For this week's current event I read Charlotte Dotson’s review of the article, “Why This Scientist Keeps Receiving Packages of Serial Killers' Hair.” by Heather Murphy. After reading Charlotte’s review on this article I think she did a great job writing about this article because she explained the main points of the story, which were that scientists can now match the hair to people without a root that was previously needed to do this. Another thing Charlotte did a great job doing in this review was explaining how important this new breakthrough is to criminal cases, and forensic science, “...scientists have only been able to match a hair strand to a suspect if the hair contained a root. Though most people lose 50-100 strands of hair a day, very few of the strands have a root…”. Charlotte also did a great job relating this story to society and the impact that this new breakthrough has, like the privacy issues that many people are concerned about.
I really enjoyed reading Charlotte’s piece but if she added a few more things I think would have really made her review stand out. One thing I wish was added in this review was direct quotes from the article which would increase the credibility of this review. I also wish that Charlotte discussed the new process of matching the hair to a suspect.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading the review that Charlotte wrote, it was very well written and interesting to read, it gave me a great insight to this article and I am curious to learn more now.
Murphy, Heather. “Why This Scientist Keeps Receiving Packages of Serial Killers' Hair.” The New
York Times, The New York Times, 16 Sept. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/science/hair-dna-murder.html?rref=collection/timestopic/ForensicScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection.
Charlotte’s review of “Why This Scientist Keeps Receiving Packages of Serial Killers’ Hair” by Heather Murphy was very informative. Charlotte had a good introduction that helped contextualize the article and provide the reader with some knowledge as to how hair can impact a forensic investigation. In addition, I think Charlotte also did a good job formatting her review. In my opinion, it was very easy to follow and I could understand what she was trying to express. Lastly, I believe Charlotte did a good job in pointing out that the author, Heather Murphy, could have gone into more detail about how hair is used to identify people. I think that is a concept most people don’t know much about and readers could benefit from reading more about it and how it is done.
While Charlotte did a good job reviewing this article, one minor thing I would try and fix are the few spelling mistakes. At times, the reader has to stop and try to figure out what word Charlotte was trying to say because it was accidentally mistyped. Nothing is incomprehensible, however, if she were to read it over closely I’m sure she too would easily find those spots as they slow the reader down. In addition, one more thing I think this review could benefit from is more analysis. Charlotte does a great job of summarizing and contextualizing but I think she could include more about the importance of this discovery and this new forensic method.
Overall, I found this article to be engaging and I think Charlotte did a very good job of giving a brief oversight into this new discovery. I found this very interesting because I originally thought, through books and tv shows, that hair was this crucial piece of evidence that could link someone to a crime, but I never realized it needed to specifically be a root of the hair to be important.
Riley Morgan
Mr. Ip
9/26/19
Current Event 3
Murphy, Heather. “Why This Scientist Keeps Receiving Packages of Serial Killers' Hair.” The New
York Times, The New York Times, 16 Sept. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/science/hair-dna-murder.html?rref=collection/timestopic/ForensicScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection.
The review Charlotte Dotson performed on the article “Why This Scientist Keep Receiving Packages of Serial Killers’ Hair” by Heather Murphy Was very interesting and informative. She talks about how scientists are now able to use all strands of hair and forensic analysis rather than just the root. I like the briefness of her review as it kept me involved the whole entire time. I like how she was straightforward with the information. When she stated that “Though most people lose 50-100 strands of hair a day, very few of the strands have a root making them virtually useless to forensic scientists. Now, with Ed Green’s discovery, law enforcement can finally put the abundance of hair strands they have collected to good use.” It was a good way to put the information because she did not use any unnecessary detail and got the point across of the article. I also appreciate how she weighed fingerprint analysis vs. Hair strand analysis at the end because I agreed with her viewpoint.
One thing Charlotte could improve on is checking her spelling and grammar. When she said “to match a hait strand to a suspect” It was confusing and I had to stop to make sure I knew what she meant. I also wish she included quotes from the article. Without quotes, her accuracy about the contents are questionable. A quote or two would be an easy way for her to improve vastly.
I chose this article because it was very interesting and I enjoy reading things like this. I also wanted to see Charlotte’s writing style as I have never looked at one of her reviews before. By reading this article I learned how scientists can now use hair no matter if it comes from the root or not . It was very informative. It will change my perception because now I have another piece of knowledge that I can use.
Charlotte clarifies how a researcher has had a significant achievement in crime scene investigation. Ed Green, a paleogeneticist at the University of California has found how to coordinate hair to a suspect without the root. This is significant in light of the fact that before this disclosure individuals couldn't coordinate a hair test to a suspect in the event that it didn't have a root. She clarifies how Green is functioning with the FBI to locate a suspect in a formerly cool case. This is so astounding in light of the fact that it can help explain a case that would have never been settled notwithstanding Green's revelation. Additionally, Charlotte clarifies how this new revelation can likewise be a terrible thing. Since it is such another system many are worried that it may not be excessively exact yet. Researchers accept that this system could prompt unjust allegations of individuals who did nothing incorrectly. Charlotte generally made a fabulous showing on this task yet there are a few regions where she could improve. For instance, "The one change I would make is that Heather Murphy didn't give clear subtleties regarding how precisely researchers can utilize hair strands to recognize individuals." this sentence is excessively dubious and should be improved. I feel that the article showed manners by which the researchers can utilize this new strategy. I think she needs to state how the article can change and not why. "It is gently worried that with a solitary strand of hair, law requirement can tell where an individual has been," in this sentence Charlotte needs to include a case of why it is worried for individuals' protection. I think this article is so intriguing on the grounds that it will change the war scientific researchers everlastingly take a gander at cases.
Randy Ayala Valdez
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics
Murphy, Heather. “Why This Scientist Keeps Receiving Packages of Serial Killers' Hair.” The New
York Times, The New York Times, 16 Sept. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/science/hair-dna-murder.html?rref=collection/timestopic/ForensicScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection.
Charlotte wrote a review on the ability of strands of hair being used as a source of identification and the ethics behind the notion. She incorporates her insight and perspective throughout her “critique” paragraph in a way that is encompasses her concerns and thinking on the subject. Her thoughts and uneasiness towards hair being used to identify people, particularly criminals, creates a sense of balance between facts and opinions because she provides a sufficient amount of context. Correspondingly, Charlotte supplies the reader with context when discusses the scientific breakthrough and Ed Green. Providing context enables the reader to understand the concept on a deeper level, exploring scientific aspects of the case. Additionally, Charlotte is very concise, rarely adding extraneous information and facts that wouldn’t apply to the article. This make sher review very easy to grasp and appreciate.
Although Charlotte was able to be concise, her review was a little too simplistic. Doing this provided a very flat and narrow viewpoint of the case. She could improve on this by explaining vague concepts and questioning practices that she discusses in the review. Likewise, she presented a challenge that the new scientific discovery may face, the unreliability of thi source of identification, but failed to address a way they plan on solving this or not tackling the issue.
One thing I was able to take away from this review was the pattern between law enforcement and privacy concerns and they are often times intertwined. It is important to question whether something is justified especially within the criminal justice field. Thus, a new scientific discovery should be treated and implemented very carefully to ensure they do not violate any privacy rights.
Post a Comment