Forensic Test Predicts Eye and Hair Color From DNA

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Forensic Test Predicts Eye and Hair Color From DNA

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @08:30AM from the accurate-to-some-amount-of-decimal-places dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A forensic test that has been developed to help police nab perpetrators of crimes can predict a suspect's eye color, hair color, and ethnic origin. The test's ability and the science behind it has been outlined in Forensic Science International: Genetics (abstract). Developed by Susan Walsh and other researchers from the Netherlands, Greece, and Poland, the test uses phenotypes from DNA to ... predict a suspect's appearance using 'low amounts of template DNA, as well as degraded DNA,' which means that the DNA does not need to be perfect in order for the system to read it."

73 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

We swear your honor... by wbr1 · 2012-08-28 08:33 · Score: 4, Funny

The DNA doesn't lie! Sure it was degraded and we had to amplify and replicate degraded copies.. but it said the rapist would have brown hair and blue eyes.. and look.. does the suspect not have brown hair and blue eyes?
Later, in the jury room... DNA is always right.. GUILTY!!!

--
Silence is a state of mime.
1. Re:We swear your honor... by willie3204 · 2012-08-28 08:39 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The OJ verdict disagrees with that line of thought
  
  --
  The answer to all your problems
2. Re:We swear your honor... by Kenja · 2012-08-28 08:42 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  So the question is, if the tests say he has blue eyes, but he actually has brown, can that be used as evidence in his defense? If not, then why would it be usable by the prosecution if he has blue?
  
  There's not much "science" in forensic science. You'll be hard pressed to find a single peer reviewed study that shows finger prints to be a valid means of identification (at least of the sort used in forensics where only a few points need to line up).
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
3. Re:We swear your honor... by mapkinase · 2012-08-28 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  The phrase "grisly science" have never had so many meanings
  
  --
  I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
4. Re:We swear your honor... by Desler · 2012-08-28 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit!
5. Re:We swear your honor... by Dr.+Tom · 2012-08-28 08:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You'll be hard pressed to find a single peer reviewed study that shows finger prints to be a valid means of identification
  challenge accepted
  http://lpr.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/2/87.short
6. Re:We swear your honor... by Kenja · 2012-08-28 08:52 · Score: 2
  
  Close, but that only shows that the validation method holds up legally. It does not show that no two people in the world have the same fingerprints much less the same 2-5 whirl markers used for comparison by law enforcement.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
7. Re:We swear your honor... by Dr.+Tom · 2012-08-28 08:56 · Score: 2
  
  You're right.
  Not to mention that it is possible to wear fake fingertips that give you somebody else's fingerprints ...
  Also a problem with degraded DNA: if you find some DNA at the crime scene that codes for a person with blue eyes, that doesn't mean the blue-eyed DNA is related to the suspect, just that somebody with blue eyes had been there some time in the past ...
8. Re:We swear your honor... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit!
  If you believe that, I have this nice bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan that I can sell you.
9. Re:We swear your honor... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  OJ will get zero
  'Cause he was a hero
  Who carried a ball
  In September through fall
  Entertaining the twit
  Who will vote to acquit!
  - The Capitol Steps
10. Re:We swear your honor... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  Close, but that only shows that the validation method holds up legally. It does not show that no two people in the world have the same fingerprints much less the same 2-5 whirl markers used for comparison by law enforcement.
  It doesn't have to eliminate every other person in the world. It only has to include/exclude likely suspects.
11. Re:We swear your honor... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-08-28 09:17 · Score: 2
  
  So the question is, if the tests say he has blue eyes, but he actually has brown, can that be used as evidence in his defense?
  
  Once you catch the suspect, you can run a full DNA match. This test will only tell you how does the suspect *probably* look like. It can probably miss those features that depend on multiple genes or perhaps are influenced by some other factors or conditions, but this is for manhunts, not for the court room.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
12. Re:We swear your honor... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  If the shoe fit you must marry cinderella, so what's your point?
13. Re:We swear your honor... by cheesybagel · 2012-08-28 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Not even that. I can collect someones hair clippings or dandruff in a salon and leave them somewhere.
14. Re:We swear your honor... by Baloroth · 2012-08-28 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Ahem: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/04/18/1018707108. First result on Google. Short version: false positives at a .1% rate, false negatives at 7.5%, independent review caught every single one. I'd say that is reasonably accurate.
  There is a ton of science in forensic science. Obviously, it is not 100% nor is it "hard" science where you can get 99.9995% confidence using a thousand or more trials for each match like you can in, say, physics. That is why you have a trial, and "beyond reasonable doubt", not beyond all doubt.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
15. Re:We swear your honor... by tnk1 · 2012-08-28 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I think this would probably be impeachable in a trial if used as actual evidence. A prosecutor may well try to get it in, if they wanted to try and play to the CSI Effect, but I don't think it would stick.
  However, if it is only used to locate a subject who can then be more completely tested and investigated, there is no need for this process to appear in trial.
  Of course, it might enter the legal system if it is used as probable cause to get a warrant for a search or some other investigative purpose. For those purposes, I think you still would need to give something more than hair color or ethnic makeup, unless the field has already been narrowed down in some other way as well. In that case, the investigative burden is much less because no one is being arrested or charged, but you still need enough evidence to narrow it down sufficiently so it isn't a blank check to search any blonde, blue eyed female Caucasian in a 5 block radius.
16. Re:We swear your honor... by wbr1 · 2012-08-28 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  So the question is, if the tests say he has blue eyes, but he actually has brown, can that be used as evidence in his defense?
  Once you catch the suspect, you can run a full DNA match. This test will only tell you how does the suspect *probably* look like. It can probably miss those features that depend on multiple genes or perhaps are influenced by some other factors or conditions, but this is for manhunts, not for the court room.
  If you think it won't be used in the courtroom by overzealous prosecutors and police, with paid forensic 'scientists' to spout out 'scientific' reasons the results are right to confuse the jury, I have some prime tropical real estate for sail in Nova Scotia.
  
  --
  Silence is a state of mime.
17. Re:We swear your honor... by MozeeToby · 2012-08-28 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, hair clippings wouldn't provide DNA and it would become quite obvious that they were planted when every hair found at the crime scene was found to be snipped rather than pulled/fallen out.
18. Re:We swear your honor... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 09:48 · Score: 0
  
  Except now they can use a fingerprint database search to build their list of likely suspects.
19. Re:We swear your honor... by Sulphur · 2012-08-28 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  The DNA doesn't lie! Sure it was degraded and we had to amplify and replicate degraded copies.. but it said the rapist would have brown hair and blue eyes.. and look.. does the suspect not have brown hair and blue eyes?
  Later, in the jury room... DNA is always right.. GUILTY!!!
  Worse, he resembles the CGI rendering. A lot of talented forensic artists will be seeking employment elsewhere in a few years.
  --
  Or was it brown eyes and blue/orange hair?
20. Re:We swear your honor... by icebike · 2012-08-28 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Except now they can use a fingerprint database search to build their list of likely suspects.
  So what?
  Prints found on the murder weapon point to the most likely suspects.
  Why would you have them look elsewhere than at the most likely suspects?
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
21. Re:We swear your honor... by swell · 2012-08-28 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  "Not to mention that it is possible to wear fake fingertips that give you somebody else's fingerprints ..."
  This is why I also carry a vial of my ex's DNA when I'm doing crimes.
  
  --
  ...omphaloskepsis often...
22. Re:We swear your honor... by CanHasDIY · 2012-08-28 10:09 · Score: 2
  
  You'll be hard pressed to find a single peer reviewed study that shows finger prints to be a valid means of identification
  challenge accepted
  http://lpr.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/2/87.short
  Counter example:
  
  In 2004, cognitive neoroscientist Itiel Dror set out to examine whether the process of fingerprint analysis, long considered one of the most reliable forms of forensic science, can be biased by the knowledge examiners have when they attempt to find a match for prints from a crime scene... Dror constructed an experiment using the case of Brandon Mayfield. Mayfield, an Oregon lawyer, was at the center of international controversy in 2004 after the FBI and an independent analyst incorrectly matched his prints to a partial print found on a bag of detonators from the Madrid terrorist bombings.
  
  Dror asked five fingerprint experts to examine what they were told were the erroneously matched prints of Mayfield. In fact, they were re-examining prints from their own past cases. Only one of the experts stuck by their previous judgments. Three reversed their previous decisions and one deemed them “inconclusive.”
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
23. Re:We swear your honor... by Sooner+Boomer · 2012-08-28 10:15 · Score: 2
  
  To be fair, hair clippings wouldn't provide DNA and it would become quite obvious that they were planted when every hair found at the crime scene was found to be snipped rather than pulled/fallen out.
  You obviously haven't been to my hair salon!
  
  --
  Chaos maximizes locally around me.
24. Re:We swear your honor... by wonkey_monkey · 2012-08-28 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  It does not show that no two people in the world have the same fingerprints
  Would you require proof that there's no teapot orbiting the Earth before you'll accept that it's probably not there?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
25. Re:We swear your honor... by MozeeToby · 2012-08-28 10:20 · Score: 2
  
  On the other hand, if said DNA comes from fresh blood at the crime scene, or semen, or skin flakes under the victim's nails, or [etc, etc, etc]. There are plenty of times when you can say, if not for certainty, then at least beyond a reasonable doubt, that the DNA came from the perpetrator (or at the very, very least, a witness).
26. Re:We swear your honor... by turkeyfeathers · 2012-08-28 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Would you require proof that there's no teapot orbiting the Earth before you'll accept that it's probably not there?
  If the Chinese have a manned space program, you can be sure there's a teapot orbiting the Earth.
27. Re:We swear your honor... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 13:09 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is that DNA in forensics is so interpretive that I would dismiss DNA evidence, if I was on a jury. DNA mismatch can show innocence, but it does not prove guilt.
28. Re:We swear your honor... by mr100percent · 2012-08-28 13:30 · Score: 2
  
  Interestingly enough, at the time his defense lawyers actually tried to make the claim that perhaps some of OJ's DNA could have wafted from the test tube with his blood into the other tube containing the crime evidence. I guess the public was so new to the idea of DNA that some thought it possible.
29. Re:We swear your honor... by renegadesx · 2012-08-28 13:40 · Score: 2
  
  But this... is Chewbacca. That does not make sense.
  
  --
  Make SELinux enforcing again!
30. Re:We swear your honor... by davester666 · 2012-08-28 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  So you walk around with a turkey baster filled with his semen, just waiting for the opportunity to use it?
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
31. Re:We swear your honor... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 18:41 · Score: 0
  
  let's put it this way. It is a wonderful technique and it has many uses. But in the end, like DNA testing, the results are interpreted by humans.
  There is the famous case of Shirley McKie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_McKie
  It resulted in a public inquiry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint_Inquiry
  The interesting conclusions of this inquiry:
  9. Fingerprint examiners are presently ill-equipped to reason their conclusions as they are accustomed to regarding their conclusions as a matter of certainty and seldom challenged.
  10. There is no reason to suggest that fingerprint comparison in general is an inherently unreliable form of evidence but practitioners and fact-finders alike require to give due consideration to the limits of the discipline.
32. Re:We swear your honor... by wonkey_monkey · 2012-08-28 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  Racial stereotype FTW. And of course all the American astronauts wear stetsons and cowboy boots.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
33. Re:We swear your honor... by turkeyfeathers · 2012-08-28 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  No, all Americans are too fat to fit into their cowboy boots anymore ;=)
34. Re:We swear your honor... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-29 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  No, all Americans are too fat to fit into their cowboy boots anymore ;=)
  Fail.
  One could write an entire article about what you don't know about US fashion.
  I kid, of course.
35. Re:We swear your honor... by RevDisk · 2012-08-29 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  Very funny. We just order bigger boots.
Re:Abortions ahoy! by iONiUM · 2012-08-28 08:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well, actually people may misuse this in a different way. Cosmetic abortions: aborting because the DNA in your baby seems to indicate it will grow up to be an ugly person.
Ethnic origins by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 08:35 · Score: 0, Flamebait

only white people have a variety of possible eye colors and hair colors anyway.
1. Re:Ethnic origins by sudden.zero · 2012-08-28 08:43 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  True for the most part but now always true. Not to mention that some eye colors are getting rarer. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/world/americas/18iht-web.1018eyes.3199975.html
2. Re:Ethnic origins by kneeslasher · 2012-08-28 08:43 · Score: 2
  
  Is this a joke? Have you never seen the red/blonde haired blue/green/grey eyed people in northern South Asia? Or the blonde Aborigines? Or black people with blue eyes? The iconic ancient painting of (maybe) Tocharians with red hair and blue eyes? Sure, the diversity increases in (northern) Europe, but it assuredly exists elsewhere (the Nazis had problems explaining it).
3. Re:Ethnic origins by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 09:12 · Score: 0
  
  But we're all just the same! Equal! EEEEEEQUALLLL!!
4. Re:Ethnic origins by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  As you're indicating, they don't actually mean "ethnic origins".
  Ethnicity means culture; it's non-biological and totally orthogonal to what they're talking about, but they don't want to use the discredited word "race".
5. Re:Ethnic origins by icebike · 2012-08-28 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  Is this a joke? Have you never seen the red/blonde haired blue/green/grey eyed people in northern South Asia? Or the blonde Aborigines? Or black people with blue eyes? The iconic ancient painting of (maybe) Tocharians with red hair and blue eyes? Sure, the diversity increases in (northern) Europe, but it assuredly exists elsewhere (the Nazis had problems explaining it).
  Surely you have heard of recessive genes, and the decreasing chance of being Black or Asian and having blue eyes.
  Without a blue eyed person in the family tree of BOTH parents your chance of having blue eyes is slim to none.
  Try here for a simplistic (but still pretty good) explanation.
  It turns out its not quite as simple as that because eye color is not controlled strictly by one gene, and there are more than one path to blue eyes (and all of them are recessive genes).
  There are rare mutations that can spontaneously cause blue eyes as well. These are even rarer.
  That you can point to a few individuals that have unexpected eye and hair color means nothing.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Abortions ahoy! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 08:40 · Score: 0

Or worse: a ginger.
Re:Abortions ahoy! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-08-28 08:46 · Score: 2

What, gingers make you feel inferior?

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Some Background by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 09:09 · Score: 0

Reading through higher noise means higher background ...
A good excuse for police ethnic profiling by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-08-28 09:13 · Score: 1

Police Commissioner: "Our officers are NOT stopping and checking people because of their ethnic background. Our officers stop and check based on the DNA of the people. It's all scientificously based."

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
1. Re:A good excuse for police ethnic profiling by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 09:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  In other words, they now have another good reason to do something that they already had a good reason to do in the first place.
Hair coloring by maxwell+demon · 2012-08-28 09:16 · Score: 2

I guess hair colouring and coloured contact lenses will be getting more popular for criminals ...

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
1. Re:Hair coloring by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  That'll make it much more easy to detect aspiring criminals ...
2. Re:Hair coloring by maxwell+demon · 2012-08-29 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  That'll make it much more easy to detect aspiring criminals ...
  Sure, because no non-criminal colours his hair ...
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
eye color by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 09:34 · Score: 0

95% of the world's population has brown eyes, and 98% have "near brown" eyes.
Only about 1% have blue or green eyes.
1. Re:eye color by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  So in many countries the "eye color" part is less useful.
  But in the countries where these tests are being developed...
2. Re:eye color by MozeeToby · 2012-08-28 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  If this is true, the people I know must make up one heck of a screwed up sample because it is not what I see when I look around those I interact with on a regular basis.
3. Re:eye color by wonkey_monkey · 2012-08-28 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  the people I know must make up one heck of a screwed up sample
  That by itself is probably true for 99% of people in the world. I don't currently know anyone who isn't caucasian.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
4. Re:eye color by turkeyfeathers · 2012-08-28 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Is that you, Sven?
5. Re:eye color by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 12:00 · Score: 0
  
  The hair color part isn't useful in about as much of the world. Huge groups have black, and most have some shade of brown. This is only really useful when you're seeking a blonde or red haired person with light colored eyes, which is highly unlikely and growing even less likely. With skin tone you still only have maybe 100-200 years before it'll be completely useless as humans homogenize more and more. "This just in: Police are looking for a suspect with brown eyes, brown hair, and medium-brown skin. If you've seen this person, please call 911 immediately."
Re:But - there's "no such thing as race"... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 10:51 · Score: 0

"Antiracist" is a code word meaning "antiwhite".
Re:But - there's "no such thing as race"... by Tuidjy · 2012-08-28 11:12 · Score: 1

Yes, you caught us. I'm doing my part in trying to 'genocide' you. Due to hatred and jealousy, I married a blue eyed woman, and am thus doing my part in insuring that there are fewer blue eyed people in the next generation.
It runs in the family - my father was also led by hatred and jealousy to marry my green eyed mother. I wonder whether this means that I carry the hated genes myself... I better go and drown myself... in beer.

--
No good deed goes unpunished...
Ethnic Origin? by ve3oat · 2012-08-28 12:43 · Score: 1

Let's see, is that the ethnic origin of my father' father, or of my father's mother, or of my mother's father, or of my mother's mother? Or of all four of them? Or of all eight of their parents? Or maybe it just tells the police what color my skin is?
Predict? by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-08-28 12:44 · Score: 1

This is misuse of the word. A right word is "discover." But hair color is often not the same as the genes might suggest.
1. Re:Predict? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 14:55 · Score: 0
  
  It can predict the eye and hair colors of an unborn child and allow the mother to abort any who she finds unsatisfactory.
well, it IS a severe disability by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 14:11 · Score: 0

Everything about your life is affected by your looks, often in subtle denyable ways.
It affects your employment, even when everybody involved is same-gender hetero. It affects a cop's decision to give you a warning or a ticket. It affects your ability to sell fundraising junk as a kid. It changes how much your grandma gives you for Christmas. It can determine if you get beat up on the playground. Most obviously it affects your mate, which is a core aspect of one's life.
Over the long term, this affects mental state. It may mean suicide or murder.
1. Re:well, it IS a severe disability by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-28 22:09 · Score: 0
  
  Are you serious? So, you're trying to tell me that it's better to kill someone with brown eyes just because their parents think that they will be ugly and that they will end up killing themselves anyways? In addition, what happens when the test is wrong or messed up?
  Example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Bill_gates_portrait.jpg?uselang=es - Bill over there doesn't look too hot and he's still alive
Crown Fried Chciken by Mana+Mana · 2012-08-28 18:30 · Score: 1

I doubt it! NPR's Radio Lab had spoke on this recently. The best science can do is predict probability. Likelihood your nose, iris, cheekbones will look like X rather than Y.
Re:Abortions ahoy! by Chrisq · 2012-08-28 19:40 · Score: 2

What, gingers make you feel inferior?
No he's worried about the ginger postman who waved to his wife the other day,
Nope by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-08-28 23:47 · Score: 1

The DA's DNA tests will never come back with blue eyes. Blue eyes, no; brown skin, yes. Always.
Actually not very helpful... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-29 01:13 · Score: 0

Turns out the perp has Black hair, brown eyes, and is of African-american origin... but you knew that already
Hard On Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-29 03:27 · Score: 0

Crime employs and also causes massive employment. With it becoming ever more difficult to be a career criminal we are shutting off a lifetime of employment and fun for many of our socially deprived and psychopathic citizens. You just can't get away with it any more. It doesn't matter a bit if you are a mother stabber, a baby raper, or a safe cracker. You just are going to get caught these days.
There may be a reversal in this trend when computers get to the point that they can investigate quietly the books and paper work of the white collar people as they usually have enough power to make good law enforcement tools illegal. Besides, if we arrest all the white collar criminals there won't be any left to run the nation.