Sarah Whitney
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event 5
October 17, 2019
“Forensics: New Tool Predicts Eye, Hair and Skin Color from a DNA Sample of an Unidentified Individual.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 14 May 2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180514083926.htm.
In this article, the author describes a recently developed tool (HIrisPlex-S DNA test system) that can accurately predict someone's eye, hair, and skin color from biological material. This material can come in tiny amounts left behind at crime scenes to give law enforcement an idea of what the suspect's traits are. "This all-in-one pigmentation profile tool provides a physical description of the person in a way that has not previously been possible by generating all three pigment traits together using a freely available webtool." This tool is meant to serve as an alternate method of solving a crime if there is no DNA to compare to DNA found at a crime scene. "Importantly, we are directly predicting actual skin color divided into five subtypes -- very pale, pale, intermediate, dark, and dark to black -- using DNA markers from the genes that determine an individual's skin coloration."
This new tool can be extremely useful to forensic scientists as it provides a 'plan B' if the traditional method of DNA profiling cannot be used. Hopefully this means the number of solved cases will be able to increase, especially as more tools similar to this one are introduced into the scientific world.
The author of this article did a great job introducing this new tool and how it can be used to greatly aid forensic scientists. However, I noticed that the author was very repetitive mentioning 4+ times (in nearly exact wording) that this tool can be used to predict eye, hair, and skin color. As this article wasn't particularly lengthy, there was no need to describe it so many times. Additionally, I wish the author would have included some information about the specifics on how the HIrisPlex-S DNA test system works, how long it took to complete, what the process of decoding the DNA is like, etc.
4 comments:
Ruby Howell
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event 5
October 17, 2019
“Forensics: New Tool Predicts Eye, Hair and Skin Color from a DNA Sample of an Unidentified Individual.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 14 May 2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180514083926.htm.
In this review of the article titled: Forensics: New Tool Predicts Eye, Hair and Skin Color from a DNA Sample of an Unidentified Individual, Sara does an amazing job reflecting on the article given as well as incorporating some of the key components discussed in the reading. This article discusses a new forensic tool that has been created that has the power to predict hair, eye and skin color all from just a small DNA sample. This is highly useful for forensic scientists because of its accessibility and accuracy with being able to gather the main features of someone who was at a crime scene.
I agree with Sara’s criticism of the article being that it is too repetitive: although they wanted to emphasize the importance of the three vital parts that this new scientific tool can identify, they said the exact same thing multiple times. While noting some weak points in the article, she also gave good feedback on the article in which I also find to be true. She mentions how the article was very informative and did a good job at emphasizing the importance of this new tool, but would’ve been even more concise if the author hadn’t had repeated itself so many times. One thing that Sara did not mention that I believe was a major part of the article was why it was so important that this tool was able to identify skin color. This is because although forensic scientists have been able to use DNA tools to find eye color or hair color, apparently finding skin color was a whole new ball game. The article went into more depth with the specifics, stating: "Importantly, we are directly predicting actual skin color divided into five subtypes -- very pale, pale, intermediate, dark and dark to black…”
The reviewer did an excellent job critiquing this article while also pointing out the flaws present within the authors writing. Overall, the article did an excellent job explaining the prominence and importance of this new tool while also explaining the reasons supporting why it’s so important.
Lorelei Heath
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event 5
October 17, 2019
“Forensics: New Tool Predicts Eye, Hair and Skin Color from a DNA Sample of an Unidentified Individual.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 14 May 2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180514083926.htm.
In the review written by Sarah Whitney, she explains the current discoveries of modern forensics. These discoveries allow the authorities to identify a victim or suspect by a single fragment of DNA left from the crime scene or comparing to another’s DNA. Sarah did an excellent job at explaining the details from the article involving modern forensic science. Sarah also provided context from the article proving the facts, which made the review interesting and knowledgable.
Although Sarah’s review had detail and context in her review of the article, the forensic explanation was slightly plain. Sarah could have used a lot more information regarding the process behind science. However, the lack of forensic detail is not all Sarah’s fault. Her choice of article lacked information which led to her misfortune.
I enjoyed learning about new ways to identify suspects and missing victims. If the process works and turns to be a success, then the world could be a safer place. This is because the authorities will solve more cases frequently and they will get others done at a faster pace leading to fewer cases and more safety.
Eve Balseiro
10/27/2019
“Forensics: New Tool Predicts Eye, Hair and Skin Color from a DNA Sample of an
Unidentified Individual.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 14 May 2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180514083926.htm.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4250390869532540972&postID=1821926849493719756
Sarah Whitney’s review of the article “Forensics: New Tool Predicts Eye, Hair, and Skin Color” provides a cohesive and well-written summary and analysis. Specifically, Sarah did three things exceptionally well. Firstly, Sarah summarized a very complicated article and went in-depth without going overboard. I felt that the details she provided allowed the reader to get a good grasp of the concept without becoming overwhelming. Secondly, Sarah incorporating a quote, I felt that made her sound more educated on the topic. Lastly, I agree with Sarah’s criticism of the article. The author was very repetitive and Sarah did a good job articulating that.
Though I think Sarah did a very good job analyzing and summarizing, I wish she included more about how the HIrisPlex-S DNA test system determined characteristics. Also, though I liked her use of a quote, I wish she included maybe one or two more to enhance her analysis.
This article, as well as Sarah’s analysis, taught me about a new “plan b’ for the traditional method of DNA comparisons. I had never heard about this before and highly doubt I would have without having read Sarah’s review. If this new method is effective, it completely changes the way crime scenes are looked at. Determining a suspect can become a lot simpler.
Olivia Martin
Mr. Ippolito D Odd
10/27/19
Current Event #6
“Forensics: New Tool Predicts Eye, Hair and Skin Color from a DNA Sample of an Unidentified Individual.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 14 May 2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180514083926.htm.
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2019/10/sarah-whitney-mr.html
Sarah wrote a well-written review on “Forensics: New Tool Predicts Eye, Hair and Skin Color from a DNA Sample of an Unidentified Individual” by ScienceDaily. Firstly, I liked Sarah’s summary. She describes a new DNA predicting tool and how forensic scientists can utilize it. Sarah describes the purpose of the tool, how it helps forensic scientists, and the context in which scientists can use the tool. Additionally, I thought Sarah integrated quotes into her summary efficiently. Through her choice of quotes, she describes in detail how the DNA predicting tool works. Lastly, I think Sarah wrote a quality critique. She wrote multiple critiques about both the writing of the article and the details included in the article. I think her conclusion was very efficient because of the different aspects she addressed.
Although I enjoyed Sarah’s article and thought it was well done, she could slightly improve a few things. Firstly, it would have been more informational if Sarah could have included details about how the DNA predicting tool works. Although she does elaborate in her critique that the article was vague, a few more details could have improved her review. Additionally, it could have improved Sarah’s review if she included scientists or laboratories that were using this new scientific tool. I was expecting her quotes to have sources, such as these, but there were none.
Sarah’s review was very interesting and informative. When I began reading Sarah’s review, I thought the topic was very intriguing and I wanted to learn more about the topic. After reading Sarah’s review, I gained more knowledge as to how scientists can use this new DNA predicting tool in cases involving crime scenes.
Post a Comment