DNA as a crime fighting tool: Why we may be in danger of putting too much faith in it

| | March 27, 2019
feature c e c
Credit: Chris Whetzel
This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

What happens to a society when there’s suddenly a new way to identify people—to track them as they move around the world? That’s a question that the denizens of the Victorian turn of the century pondered, as they learned of a new technology to hunt criminals: fingerprinting.

[F]ingerprints were an inviolable, immutable truth, as prosecutors and professional “fingerprint examiners” began to proclaim.

Yet it also became clear, over time, that fingerprinting wasn’t as rock solid as boosters would suggest. Police experts would often proclaim in court that “no two people have identical prints”—even though this had never been proven, or even carefully studied.

Related article:  Newborns and genome sequencing: Do we sacrifice privacy in the name of health?

Yet DNA identification, like fingerprinting, can be prone to error when used sloppily in the field. One problem, notes Erin Murphy, professor of criminal law at New York University School of Law, is “mixtures”: If police scoop up genetic material from a crime scene, they’re almost certain to collect not just the DNA of the offender, but stray bits from other people.

To keep DNA from being abused, we’ll have to behave like good detectives—asking the hard questions, and demanding evidence.

Read full, original post: The Myth of Fingerprints

Share via
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend