Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Learn To Fabricate DNA Evidence
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that it is possible to fabricate blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor, and even to construct a sample of DNA to match someone's profile without obtaining any tissue from that person — if you have access to their DNA profile in a database. This undermines the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases. 'You can just engineer a crime scene,' said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper. 'Any biology undergraduate could perform this.' The scientists fabricated DNA samples in two ways. One requires a real, if tiny, DNA sample, perhaps from a strand of hair or a drinking cup. They amplified the tiny sample into a large quantity of DNA using a standard technique called whole genome amplification. The other technique relies on DNA profiles, stored in law enforcement databases as a series of numbers and letters corresponding to variations at 13 spots in a person's genome. The scientists cloned tiny DNA snippets representing the common variants at each spot, creating a library of such snippets. To prepare a phony DNA sample matching any profile, they just mixed the proper snippets together. Tania Simoncelli, science adviser to the American Civil Liberties Union, says the findings were worrisome. 'DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints,' says Simoncelli. 'We're creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology.'"
Careful with that, you might leave an incriminating DNA sample.
Company selling test to detect whether this has happened shows off a tech demonstration of why their product is necessary.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Ok folks, don't get yourselves in a tizzy over this.
If you read the article (yeah, I know, it's against Slashdot rules, but give a try anyway) you'll see that all this hype originates from a company that has a product to detect faked DNA evidence, that they hope to sell to forensics labs.
The simple fact is that if someone wants to plant your DNA at a crime scene, there are many possible ways for them to obtain *real* DNA to use for that purpose. They aren't going to go through the hassle of creating fake DNA...
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
Really? It's that easy? God, I'm an idiot. After I cloned the tiny snippets of the common variants, creating my library, I just sat there staring at them and thinking "What the hell do I do now?"
Whole genome replication seems to mostly center around Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). PCR is an incredibly versitile technology. PCR machines cycle test tubes through specific temperatures, the thermal cyclers are cheap compared to a lot of lab equipment but still in the thousands of dollars. To do a PCR also requires some type of polymerase, nucleotides, some solutions, and short primer oligonucleotides. These are all items that aren't prohibitively expensive but aren't household items either.
Maybe I'm being too ACLU/tinfoil hat, but I'm getting a sinking feeling that someone eventually is going to try to slap some regulations on PCR, or at some point in the future, having access to a thermal cycler and PCR materials is going to be seen by law enforcement as a reason to be suspicious of you. And I think that would be a real crime. I could see a future where thermal cyclers come down in price even more, maybe high school kids will start tinkering around with PCR as kids from yesteryear played with chemistry sets before we decided they could be used to make bombs and should be banned.
Maybe not. Anyway, I think we should nip it in the bud if there's any hint that law enforcement starts thinking you need to have a good reason to manipulate DNA, just so they can keep their evidence unquestionably true.
puts on sunglasses
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHH!!!
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
Well, here in Germany, the police has searched quite some time for the "phantom of Heilbronn" - a women which apparently was involved with a lot of otherwise unrelated crimes at very different places. Well, after several years it turned out that the DNA was not from someone involved in the crime, but from someone involved in fabricating the cotton buds used to take the DNA probes.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I'm alarmed too. But this news is not entirely awful. It just means that DNA is no longer quite so useful in proving that a person is guilty. It is still perfectly useful in the much more important task of proving not guilty.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
However complicated this may be it still means that the chain of evidence is important.
And if a case rests only on DNA it's never a strong case because we all leave traces of ourselves all the time. The best DNA can do is to exclude you from a location, because if your DNA is nowhere to be found it's likely that you weren't there (or weren't wearing those pesky gloves).
It is of course possible to frame someone by planting their faked DNA somewhere, but on the other hand there are other methods to do that too. A tazer and a syringe will allow you to get a good sample.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Don't forget bullet matching which I'm sure there are plenty of poor bastards rotting in jail RIGHT NOW because some FBI guy got on the stand with a nice 3 piece suit and said "This test tells us with 100% certainty that the bullet found in the victim was from the box of ammo found in the suspects home".
That is why I hope this story about DNA gets plastered all over the news. Juries just love any kind of gadget that takes out the guesswork and lets them just not think. And anyone who has had dealings with the cops for any length of time knows that crooked cops and prosecutors that care more about using cases as a stepping stone to higher office instead of justice aren't exactly rare. cases should be built on a preponderance of the evidence, not on some magic tech that solves the case instantly, which is what DNA has been, like bullet matching and fingerprints before it.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
No, that's not true. You START with the presumption of innocence. However, as the trial proceeds, the prosecution piles on more and more evidence. At some point during the trial, there may be enough evidence for the jury to remove all reasonable doubt from their mind and conclude that you did indeed commit the crime you are charged with. At this point in the trial, you are now guilty in their mind, and if you do nothing more, they will find you guilty. On the other hand, you can introduce evidence which creates reasonable doubt...or even better, proves your innocence.
So, while it is not necessary to prove the defendant innocent, it is necessary to defend him/her against evidence which would otherwise suggest guilt. You know the old saying...the best defense is a good offense.
It's usually the cops who do the framing. An example is right here in Springfield, where two cops were caught planting cocaine. Details of that one from the Illinois Times:
Springfield's worst nightmare
Man who beat cocaine rap sues the city; whistleblower's case survives
City's legal bills for ex-cops' defense expected to soar
LEGAL BILLS MOUNTING
Our cartoon city is, of course, paying for the crooked cops' defense. The news that DNA evidence can be fabricated is frightening; they need to go back to fingerprints. Of course, if you want to frame someone, cocaine is a lot easier to plant than DNA.
Free Martian Whores!