Forensics Current Event 20
Mr. Ippolito
3-30-2020
Lu, Donna. “A Fingerprint Can Show If Someone Has Taken Cocaine or Just Touched It.” New Scientist, 6 Feb. 2020, www.newscientist.com/article/2232622-a-fingerprint-can-show-if-someone-has-taken-cocaine-or-just-touched-it/.
This was tested by a team where some touched samples of cocaine 99% purity as well as street samples that were less pure. They also had people from a drug rehabilitation clinic who had ingested cocaine within the past 24 hours. From their fingerprints which were pressed for 10 seconds onto a specialized paper, the technique proved to be 95% accurate. Although this test may need further validation before being used as a forensic tool, it definitely has promising results.
This topic is extremely relevant because if at a crime scene, there are only fingerprints present, this test could be used if drugs and whether or not they were ingested is a question at hand. The article also mentions using this test for people operating public transportation to ensure the safety of citizens, especially because the test is so fast.
This author did a great job explaining the study and the information surrounding what it is. However, I wish they would have expanded a bit more on the background of the topic such as how they came to find that benzoylecgonine is excreted through sweat after someone has ingested cocaine as well as if this test could be used for other drugs.
4 comments:
Sunday Ladas
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics D-ODD
30 March 2020
Lu, Donna. “A Fingerprint Can Show If Someone Has Taken Cocaine
or Just Touched It.” New Scientist, 6 Feb. 2020,
www.newscientist.com/article/2232622-a-fingerprint-can-show
-if-someone-has-taken-cocaine-or-just-touched-it/.
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2020/03/sarah-whitney-forensics-curr
ent-event.html
I like how Sarah informed the reader as to how the forensic scientist perform the autopsy. It was and what it was and how she explained the steps the forensic scientist took when performing the autopsy. I also found it interesting how she explained the positive and negative effects of the new treatment that is being researched as the writer of the article did. I also liked how she incorporated current problems when opening their body and how it tells them what happened. Lastly, I thought that she did a really good job incorporating the article into her article, I liked how she incorporated quotes that the Author of the article she read said.
I did not like how she listed facts then talked about a dispute between two forensic scientists and then listed facts again. I felt she could have listed the facts and then talked about the dispute between the scientists regarding the new treatment. Although she did a good job tying the article into current day events and problems, I felt she could have added more to tie in the cause of death to current events or given more examples as to what the cause of death was.
When reading this article I learned lots of new things about forensic anthropologists that I didn’t know before. I found that the new treatment that makes it easier to perform an autopsy could potentially be easier. I think that this particular case is very interesting because the forensic report differentiated animal parts from human parts.
Sunday Ladas
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics D-ODD
30 March 2020
Lu, Donna. “A Fingerprint Can Show If Someone Has Taken Cocaine
or Just Touched It.” New Scientist, 6 Feb. 2020,
www.newscientist.com/article/2232622-a-fingerprint-can-show
-if-someone-has-taken-cocaine-or-just-touched-it/.
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2020/03/sarah-whitney-forensics-curr
ent-event.html
I like how Sarah informed the reader as to how the forensic scientist perform the autopsy. It was and what it was and how she explained the steps the forensic scientist took when performing the autopsy. I also found it interesting how she explained the positive and negative effects of the new treatment that is being researched as the writer of the article did. I also liked how she incorporated current problems when opening their body and how it tells them what happened. Lastly, I thought that she did a really good job incorporating the article into her article, I liked how she incorporated quotes that the Author of the article she read said.
I did not like how she listed facts then talked about a dispute between two forensic scientists and then listed facts again. I felt she could have listed the facts and then talked about the dispute between the scientists regarding the new treatment. Although she did a good job tying the article into current day events and problems, I felt she could have added more to tie in the cause of death to current events or given more examples as to what the cause of death was.
When reading this article I learned lots of new things about forensic anthropologists that I didn’t know before. I found that the new treatment that makes it easier to perform an autopsy could potentially be easier. I think that this particular case is very interesting because the forensic report differentiated animal parts from human parts.
Randy Ayala Valdez
March 2020
Lu, Donna. “A Fingerprint Can Show If Someone Has Taken Cocaine or Just Touched It.” New Scientist, 6 Feb. 2020, www.newscientist.com/article/2232622-a-fingerprint-can-show-if-someone-has-taken-cocaine-or-just-touched-it/.
Sarah was able to include as many details as she possibly could retain from the article she read without making the review too long. Her review contained a lot of details on the use of the new test, highlighting specific things that did not work with the technology intended to detect accurate levels of cocaine in our blood. She did not overcompensate and include irrelevant information to cover the page. The informative and insightful remarks made it very easy to read the review and navigate through the issues discussed in the writing. Sarah also gives the reader a lot of statistics. It was a good idea to make it known because the date/year has a tremendous impact on the understanding of the article.
Sarah could improve her by providing more constructive feedback to the author of the article she chose and listing more factors that contribute to the positive and negative aspects of using the new test. If she offered more information on the cons provided in contrast to the benefits or pros, the review would have given the reader more of a feel of what happened in relation to the new test.
I learned about the new use of tests to detect cocaine. These tests can then be used in terms of forensic science to determine whether or not these drugs were present at the crime scene. The technique used to perform these tests seemed very promising, having a 95% accuracy rate.
Olivia Prior
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics EF EVEN
28 Octoberber 2021
Lu, Donna. “A Fingerprint Can Show If Someone Has Taken Cocaine
or Just Touched It.” New Scientist, 6 Oct. 2021,
www.newscientist.com/article/2232622-a-fingerprint-can-show
-if-someone-has-taken-cocaine-or-just-touched-it/.
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2020/03/sarah-whitney-forensics-current-event.html
An aspect of this review that I liked is that Sarah introduced the topic in a very effective and clear manner. In her first sentence she informed the reader of the recent development as well as why it is beneficial when she wrote “A new test can now distinguish whether someone touched cocaine or ingested it, taking less than 2 minutes which is far faster than a blood test”. I like this because, as a reader, it captured my attention immediately and made me want to read more. The second aspect I liked was that she explained how this “new test” came about and explained that Benzoylecgonine is excreted through the sweat of the individual who ingested cocaine. I have already learned something new after the first few sentences. The final thing I liked about Sarah’s review was that she explained the relevance and value of this new discovery. She said that this new test can help investigations if, at the crime scene, there are only fingerprints present. Testing their fingerprints can determine if drugs were present and whether or not they were ingested by those at the scene.
Something I did not like about Sarah's review was that she started contradicting herself in the second paragraph. In the first paragraph she talks about how great this new test is but in the second paragraph she says “Although this test may need further validation before being used as a forensic tool, it definitely has promising results”. After the second paragraph, Sarah went back to discussing all the positives, so in order to improve this review I think she should have kept the positive aspects together and her doubts in a separate paragraph somewhere towards the end. I also did not like how there was no information about how investigators tested for cocaine previous to this new test. I think this because it would create a bit of a contrast between the old and new method, emphasizing the significance and degree of improvement this new discovery has.
From this article and Sarah's review I learned a way that cocaine ingestion can be tested. Although it is not 100% accurate, it is still an efficient testing method. I chose this article because I never knew how scientists/ investigators tested for any type of drugs and I certainly did not know it was possible through something as simple as a fingerprint. This article has changed an understanding of mine about fingerprints. I thought fingerprints were really only used to identify an individual, but now I know they can be used for other things such as drug testing.
Post a Comment