Slashdot Mirror
DNA Extraction From Fingerprints
Myriad writes "A Canadian scientist has developed a new way of gathering DNA evidence for analysis using fingerprints. The new test can extract DNA in 15 minutes - even from a print stored for many years and in varying conditions. The patented extraction technique consistently produces ~10 nanograms of DNA. Analysis generally requires 5-10 nanograms, although it is possible with as little as 0.1 nanogram."
this brings up scary issues...think how many times you've been finger printed...cashing checks, getting a driver's liscense...many people bring their children in for fingerprinting, in case of kidnapping or incase the child somehow gets lost. I, and many of those parents would never think to let the government have their or their child's DNA on file. could the government use this technique to start on their national DNA database? scary thought...
Fingerprints are created by cellular residue rubbing off from the skin, and this process collects these in order to extract the DNA. However, why would this be labeled exclusively in use for fingerprints? Couldn't the process be used for almost any surface that a person has had direct contact with? This might also have many problems with contamination with the DNA of other cellular residue.
I have to say I gave up on any thoughts of privacy not long ago with the way technology is moving towards nabbing bits of DNA. This is just another jump forwards.
Not only can DNA be grabbed from a scene, but when cross referenced with the fingerprints that it was derived from, an ID can be made -without having you there- to compare from.
OK, so it's also possible that there could be contaminated DNA on your fingerprints, but all the same it looks like it'll be a strong enough match to be able to give whoever is analysing the DNA a bigger lead than just a fleck of skin or hair left at a scene.
This technology can be and is used for more than just fingerprints. The article says that this technology isn't new - the Canadian just came up with a better way of doing it. As far as contamination, other cellular residue is easily spun out, you buy kits for that, that part is fast and cheap. The main thing I would be worried about is the purity of the sample as far as number of sources of DNA. Lots of people touch alot of the same things.
Including the EFF, it seems. First, what's the big deal about having your DNA on file? It's just a blueprint for the body - individuality comes from the mind. So "the government" has a DNA listing for you...damn, there goes my your career as a rapist. Second, if you don't want your DNA cataloged don't leave it laying around. Wear gloves. And a hat. And a suit to catch falling skin flakes and eyelashes. And sneezes. And don't get arrested or take any jobs where a fingerprint is required.
Like in the next 5 to 10 years, the world will be run by thoughtful people who won't use technology like this to keep people under the thumb of government and industry.
Once you gain sufficient control over people you cross the line that divides governance from ownership. And I don't think human beings are sufficiently moral creatures to be trusted with the opportunity to own other human beings, whether it's outright ownership, or ownership implied in so many ways through the laws and practices of a society.
You can't plant a fingerprint. But you *can* plant somebody's DNA.
Then the prosecutor does his 1 in 10,000,000,000 lecture to the jury, and he's guilty!
Nevermind the fact that the DNA evidence could have been easily planted, if not at the crime scene, then at the lab.
We've seen this before. And not just with OJ.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Well, once insurance companies get records of DNA and use it to make policy decisions it will really hurt the basis of health insurance. Perhaps it is time to think of national health insurance?
Did anyone read this story and immediately think of how they just vacuum the entire crime scene and run every piece of debris through an instant DNA test? The first time I saw that I thought it was 50+ years away; now I would be suprised not to see it within a decade or two.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
current dna testing relies on "marker" regions which are supposed to be present in a unique combination for each individual. however, because this is not a whole sequence comparison, there is a small chance of a false positive error but smaller than that of false positives using fingerprints. Indeed the marker regions were selected because they were (relatively) fast to test and did not give away information about the suspect (eg. race or eye colour, although one of the markers was later found to be linked to diabetes).
i think that this technology will eventually find its way into our courtrooms, and this is good. what would be bad is if we thought that any technology was so perfect that we didn't need a trial and we could go out hunting bad guys on their dna evidence alone.
there is no substitute for a public trial where all the evidence gets laid out on the table and a reasonable judge ensures that all parties are treated fairly. if that doesn't happen for the least of our citizens, then it's time to go find another country to live and work in. I've moved countries twice, and i'm always watching with my overnight bag under my desk.
beyond crime there are benign uses for dna identification. the Army DNA registry would also serve as a way to identify the dead, who have been blown up beyond recognition. this gives valuable closure for families and loved ones.
paternity testing now requires that you have a live man to take a sample from. with this new tech you could get the dna fingerprint from the inside of a locket or something.
the way i see it, leaving dna is like a form of subconscious, automatic grafitti. we are always tagging our environment with the words "i wuz here."
it's just that these days, there might be people around who care to read it.
could the government use this technique to start on their national DNA database? scary thought...
Wouldn't a national DNA database be a good thing? How many crimes go unsolved even when DNA is found but no match is made? How many people have been released from death row because of advances in DNA tech that didn't even exist when they were wrongly put away? More information is a good thing, people!
Sure.... a few people may misuse it. Maybe my insurance company will raise my tab because they see I carry a gene for heart disease but why shouldn't they? They're gambling that I don't get sick. They're proving a service. If you think they shouldn't be able to ask for a DNA scan you probably think they have no business asking for your family history or whether you smoke. Please!
No pun intended, but this is really why the fight over who owns your personal data is so fookin' important. In ten or twenty years, the decisions made today about who owns your medical records, which databases can be legally connected or correlated and who the FBI has to talk to to see that data are going to vitally effect our civil rights on a scale we can't quite imagine.
It's not unreasonable to imagine that in 20 years it will be as easy to pick up your identity from a retinal scan, a fingerprint or even trace DNA is it currently is to pick up your identity from your credit card or your supermarket discount card, and if we don't have more stringent policies around handling of personal data we're all screwed. There's no place to hide when your body constantly sheds ID packets. Your cells are you.
Identity Commons is trying to get some stuff off the ground using a "governance-based" identity system: where the people who's identities are being stored actually get to vote on how the system is run.
It's an interesting idea, and might (in the long run) offer some answers to that age old question: who watches the watchmen?
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
With a process of this sensitivity, accidental contamination may become a serious problem. Did that billionth of a gram of DNA come from the perp's fingerprint or did it float into the room from somewhere else?
The problem is that the boundary for defining "forcible extraction" has just moved. With this technique, they can extract your DNA very easily, and won't need a court order at all. The can just lift it from a (carefully prepared) pen that you use to sign a traffic ticket, or the glass of water you request after several hours of questioning. The courts will probably not consider that "forcible extraction" but your DNA will end up on file without your knowledge anyway.
I think that requiring consent to nab DNA in this way should be required, but I'm not betting more than five cents that this will happen in today's political climate.
Senator: well, now we can cross that out of the Patriot act.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
not getting into what I do in my profession, this is almost completely wrong. A lot more goes into a police investigation than just the dna evidence. If that were true, your grandmother and my sister who touched the same steel bat in the sports store could be implicated if that bat were ever used to beat the tar out of someone.
Sorry to have to correct you, but that statement of yours isn't very accurate.