Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Find Way To Combat Forged DNA

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the i'll-see-your-dna-evidence-and-raise-you-an-authenticator dept.

An anonymous reader writes to tell us that while scientists may have learned how to forge DNA, it appears that a group of Israeli scientists has created a DNA authentication method that is able to distinguish between real and faked DNA samples. "The new process was tested on natural and artificial samples of blood, saliva and touched surfaces, with complete success, Nucleix said. It also identifies 'contaminated' DNA that has been mixed with two or more samples."

12 of 45 comments (clear)

  1. Plausible denability? by vertinox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So if I make fake DNA of myself and throw around a crime scene then I can use this method to prove I wasn't there?

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    1. Re:Plausible denability? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No (And spanking the monkey is not "fake DNA")

      All it does is provide doubt to the evidence. One cannot prove a negative ("I wasn't there"), which is why we assume innocence, and guilt must be proved beyond REASONABLE doubt.

      To prove you "weren't there" you would have to have an alibi; evidence you were somewhere else.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Plausible denability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So if I make fake DNA of myself and throw around a crime scene then I can use this method to prove I wasn't there?

      No...

      The technology for amplifying DNA has been around for a while. That is how they take tiny samples and make larger ones for testing. Using household chemicals, you can amplify your DNA easily. And yes, like you said, you could spread that everywhere.

      This amplified DNA is missing key methylated chemicals which give it away as amplified DNA.

      Current standard DNA tests do not look for DNA missing the methylated compounds.

      I think the article is describing a simple, easily standardized, easily implemented test for labs to use with every DNA test that will distinguish between real, amplified and a mix of real and amplified DNA.

      The difference between real and amplified is and always has been clear, a mechanism (created by the company in the article) now exists for looking for that difference every time. This keeps the legitimacy of DNA testing intact...your method for deniability is not.

  2. And came the authentication authentication... by SerpentMage · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First there was radar...

    Then came a radar detector...

    Then came a radar detector detector...

    And now you have a radar detector, detector, detector... or a radar detector evader...

    What is common? Only the idiots will be caught and those that don't want to be caught wont be caught and we will use technology to show how good it is to catch the idiots that would probably self-destruct anyways...

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    1. Re:And came the authentication authentication... by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well in this case the group that developed the test was also the group that showed it was possible to spoof existing tests. and it's a commercial technology: they sell the test kits. So it was totally in their interest to show why you need to buy their test.

      But also in this case it benefits the Cat and not the mouse. If someone tries to spoof the existing test and they don't guess right in how to spoof it -- e.g. they try to evade the spoof detector, and don't anticipate there is a new spoof detector evasion detector ) then it sort of nails them for premeditation of the crime.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  3. Forged but not duplicated? by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 2, Informative

    This helps prevent the issue of "artificially" generated DNA that was talked about earlier. But only 1 of 2 methods have been solved. What about replicated/duplicated DNA which isn't using other combined DNA?

    Either way, like I said before, technology is an arms race. They have authentication for simple forgery, but wait for the next big thing that will fool these tests. Good for them though at least :)

    --
    Disclaimer: I am not god.
    We may not be created equal
    But we can be treated equal.
  4. Full disclosure? by hansraj · · Score: 5, Informative

    Dan Frumkin, the lead researcher of the group that created a way to "fake DNA" is the founder of Nucleix, the company selling the test for such forgery.

    Not that this has any bearing whatsoever on the quality of the research behind all this, but still one would think that such information was relevant to this news.

  5. Re:Cat and Mouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So is the cat ahead or the mouse?

    Presuming the cat was only hungry for about 80% of it's meal, I would guess that the mouse is a head at this point.

  6. I think ... by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    It also identifies "contaminated" DNA that has been mixed with two or more samples.

    ... I know the lady responsible for collecting those mixed samples.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  7. Disclosed in the News by LionKimbro · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't see any foul play -- the article specifically says just this:

    Israeli scientists find way to combat forged DNA -- very first line reads: "Israeli scientists have developed new technology to fight biological identity theft after realising that DNA evidence found at crime scenes can be easily falsified."

    Then further on: "Elon Ganor is CEO and co-founder of Nucleix, an Israeli company specialised in DNA analysis that conducted the research."

    Further on: "To combat the practice, Nucleix has developed a DNA authentication method that distinguishes between real and fake samples."

    The article is very clear that the discoverers were also the inventors of the counter-technology.

  8. So this is how evolution started? by Grindar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now begins the genetic arms race?

  9. Wrong - not useful to prove premeditation by tlambert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wrong - not useful to prove premeditation

    "If someone tries to spoof the existing test and they don't guess right in how to spoof it ... then it sort of nails them for premeditation of the crime."

    Only if the crime you are talking about is framing someone, rather than the person being framed. Detection of fabricated evidence and contamination of evidence is useful as a defense against DNA evidence, it's not useful to law enforcement, unless the evidence was fabricated by an unrelated criminal. Even then, it only rules them out.

    First derivative: In terms of premeditation, the act would be to use the amplification technique to frame yourself, plant evidence at the scene, and then later use the detection method to prove the evidence was manufactured, thus implying you were the victim of a frame-up, rather than the real killer.

    Second derivative: A premeditated use of self-incriminating fabricated evidence could use the method as a positive assertion test to ensure that the fabrication would be caught immediately, if it was a standard cross-check, or at trial, if it wasn't. Use by law enforcement in order to manufacture a frame would be as a negative assertion test, to verify that the framing material would pass inspection at trial later, when it was attempted to be used by the defense, to create manufactured evidence which could be successfully used in a frame-up.

    So in reality, the framing technique brings into question DNA evidence, and the anti-framing technique brings into question DNA evidence.

    -- Terry