Ruby Howell Current Event #9

Ruby Howell 

Forensics Current Event #9

Mr. Ippilitto 

November 24th, 2019

O’Brien, Stephen. “DNA Evidence Used to Protect the Rhinoceros from Extinction.” 

ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 8 Jan. 2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180108105929.htm.

This article discusses how research done at Nova Southeastern University has led to the creation of a genetic database that has the power to help solve cases regarding the accusation of poaching, specifically of rhinoceros. Doctor Stephen O'brien, a scientist at Nova Southeastern, has intelligently used outside research to better support their creation, as he collaborated with University of Pretoria's Veterinary Genetics Laboratory for their report on the illegal killing of rhinoceros in Africa, to later sell to southeast Asia markets. As the numbers of rhinoceros being poached just continues to grow, so does the profit, and its consequences were highly unknown, until the new study titled Robust forensic matching of confiscated horns to individual poached African rhinoceros. This study was conducted through the results of a “database of individual rhinos' composite short-term repeat-STR (also called microsatellite) genotypes so they could match confiscated tissue-DNA to real time crime scenes for prosecution” (Obrien, 2019). Through the collection of blood stained evidence and recovered horns, this study has connected multiple people to be convicted of poaching the endangered species, and will hopefully implement further investigations regarding the illegal poaching of other species.

Doctor O'brien hopes that this database will influence the poaching market enough to make the consequences and risks just not worth it for smugglers. This Article provided incredible studies and information regarding not only forensic science, but also discussed problems regarding Animal Rights and protections throughout the world. The collection of a multitude of data on rhinoceros to create the database and its findings are just one example of the power of Forensic science. 

Your DNA Profile Is Private? A Florida Judge Just Said Otherwise

Ellie Dessart

Mr. Ippolito

Forensics C Odd

13 December 2019

Current Event 11

Citation:

Hill, Kashmir, and Heather Murphy. “Your DNA Profile Is Private? A Florida Judge Just Said

Otherwise.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Nov. 2019,

www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/business/dna-database-search-

warrant.html. 

Hill and Murphy’s article discusses the controversy over whether or not law enforcement should have access to private DNA profiles. In the past, sites such as Ancenstry.com, 23andMe, and GEDmatch have “long pledged to keep their users’ genetic information private,” but recently, for the first time, a Florida judge granted an investigator a warrant to search GEDmatch’s full database of 1.2 million users. DNA policy experts anticipate a surge in similar warrant requests in the near future as a result of this court decision, which would jeopardize people’s genetic privacy. This could affect not only users of these sites, but also those who have never taken a DNA test before, since “the emerging forensic technique makes it possible to identify a DNA profile through distant family relationships” already entered in the database. Before GEDmatch changed its policy (police previously had access to search the site without a warrant), in April 2018, California law enforcement found a match for the man they believed to be the infamous Golden State Killer. Since then, investigators have turned to genetic genealogy to identify suspects and criminals. Unfortunately, while accessing genealogy sites could solve “hundreds and hundreds of cases solved overnight,” police must be wary of privacy concerns as the debate continues.

This article delves into the complex relationship between science and society. As technology advances and forensic scientists adopt new techniques and methods, potential breakthroughs arise, and while that alone should be celebrated (yay science!), new issues, such as privacy concerns, often emerge. The controversy described in the article is complicated because we, as humans, value both privacy and justice. Forensic science helps law enforcement convict criminals and protect the people, but if it requires unwanted database searches, doesn’t that infringe on the very protection it was supposed to ensure? What contributions to science are we obligated to make, if any? Such questions can only be answered with time and future developments. 

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the article. Firstly, the piece was concise and simple to follow, as opposed to past lengthy New York Times posts I’ve read. The authors structured it well by first giving some context, then detailing the Florida court ruling, and finishing with a discussion of the issue’s prevalence in recent years since the Golden State Killer arrest. Additionally, the article compelled me to consider the rights I most value and question the extent to which I’m willing to give them up. However, the authors fell short on some minor aspects. Firstly, they failed to define ‘genetic genealogy.’ If they had provided a brief explanation of the term, it would have helped younger readers, like myself, to better understand the subject matter. Secondly, while the article does a nice job focusing on the scientific complexities of the controversy, it could have made some additional, broader connections to society as a whole. For example, I found it particularly interesting how the investigators and genetic profiling companies share the same argument, same goal, but different viewpoints. The police want access to the profiles so they can do their job (protect the people), and the companies want to deny such access so they can do the same (protect the people)! Can the two sides reach a compromise, or is such a clash inevitable? It’s an interesting dynamic, and to create more depth to the article, I’d consider adding some of these observations.