New DNA Test to Solve More Cases 65
Krishna Dagli writes From the BBC,"Tens of thousands of unsolved crimes could be cracked with a new forensic technique, it has been claimed.The Forensic Science Service (FSS) is piloting a computer-based analysis system which can interpret previously unintelligible DNA samples.It claims the technique is a world first which will boost its crime detection rates by more than 15%.The method is being tested by the West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Northumbria and Humberside police forces."
Re: (Score:1)
It actually doesn't work out that way, but I can imagine a movie coming out shortly with that as the main storyline, you wait and see...
More Importantly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More Importantly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:More Importantly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1: Remove non-violent drug offenders from prison
Step 2: Insert the above into rehabilitation programs
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit
I imagine Step 3 involves Gov't funds being given to (faith based) rehab programs
As for this new DNA test, unless it is faster, cheaper and/or more likely to stand up in court, I don't see it as making a huge difference. From what I understand, DNA testing labs are already at/near max capacity.
A
Re: (Score:1)
I am still not sure whether it is based upon sheer pattern matching (the UK has largest DNA database in the world) or if it is some other method.
However in the news I have seen they are comparing cig butts and glasses for things - in my none expert analysis, these things are usually (though not always) single user items.
What they haven't said is the real meaning, mutliple sperm samples
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here in the UK where the research is being pioneered (but I persume it is the same for everywhere,) a large part of the reason for this is that so many DNA sources are contaminated, which means lots more testing for labs, which means capacity is reached sooner.
So yes, it could make a huge difference. It is not expensive to test for DNA, it is expensive to test every single item possibly touched by the offender. If this technique mea
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Two major problems (Score:3, Insightful)
Two problems: 1)The system/process will be made mostly available to "solving" crimes, not freeing criminals; it's bad prioritization politically, existing criminals could swamp the system, and if a guilty criminal were released after a false negative and was a repeat offender, there'd be hell to pay. 2)While a "maybe a match" will certainly be grounds for the police getting warrants and such, a "maybe no
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely right! DNA tests are 100% accurate and foolproof [chron.com]. The prosecutors say so themselves [truthinjustice.org]. In fact, this new test is so easy, all you do is push a button, and the screen lights up "guilty".
Re: (Score:2)
It works the opposite way: when you claim there's a false positive, you'll get even less people to believe you, since now "we're 15% more accurate!".
It's just like the lie detector, or monitoring your internet logs for looking up "teen" in google.
Imagine if police could arrest you if your horoscope was certain you'll kill someone today and put you in jail. Crime "discoverability" will certainly raise when the
Re: (Score:1)
Imagine how many people of that star sign would be killing people if the horoscope was right.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, arresting all those people in advance would be such a win for crime discoverability and prevention.
West Yorkshire crimes solved! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought only we Southerners said that? And trust me, you have never heard "Damn Yankess" until you've heard it from someone from Mississippi.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Suspect Database (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The government needs to take a few steps back in privacy and I think we all know that.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The original tests looked for a certain number of snippets of DNA that were considered "genes". Fewer than a dozen at first, but towards the end of this test's usage, they were up to about 16. With only 2^16 possibilities ("there or not there", 16 times), it matched you, probably your family members, and about 50 thousand other people, assuming that none of those snippets of DNA were actually the gene for having two arms or something like that, si
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean... (Score:2)
This sounds like Intel's marketing department.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The DNA can be a match and still not come from the suspect. All DNA is based on statistics.
Marker A is in 0.25% of the population, Marker B is in 0.01%, C is in 0.3% and D is in 0.01% and E is in 1/3. That means that if someone has ABCDE they are 1 in 400,000. Granted, those aren't exactly real numbers and the tests can use over 10 different markers, but it gives you an idea of how the system works. Currently, it is impossible to s
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What happened to facing your accuser? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
if a case hinged on this one solitary piece of evidence, it would need to be thoroughly manually reverified to make sure it was accurate.
Unsolved, how about wrongly convicted! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, I am in favour of the death penalty, however, only under a strict set of circumstances:
1. The subject is found guilty by a jury (of peers).
2. The subject is sentenced to death by said jury (of peers).
3. The subject is deemed fit for said punishment and possesses no mental defect of appreciable concern in regards to the proceedings and determination.
and the most important o
For you non-wetware workers (Score:5, Informative)
The "new" stuff here is that they have come up with software which will allow the system to extract 2 sets of "seial numbers" from one reaction. Like having 2 fingerprints on top of one another and seperating them to determine the swirls. They also are claiming a more sensitive technique which will allow for smaller or partially degraded samples to be tested, but this is probably just tweaking the experimental protocol.
This is no new test, just tweaks and algorithms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunalty we are are all related to some degree and oh yes thats very important. It turns out that a set of good markers for Europe is not a good set for Aficans for example. Different ethinic groups have a different number of alleles in a different distrabution at a givin site for a start. Its not bloody loto, this is population genetics.
Infact most tests hover around the 1 in 3 million of a random person beign the same as someone else. This is not a probl
Re: (Score:2)
The standard CODIS set of 13 microsatellites has been in use since 1997, not really that recent if you ask me.
Birthday paradox... yes, only 365 possibilities, a good chance of collisions, CODIS database, a quintillion combinations (not coun
Re: (Score:1)
Do the math right (Score:1)
As has already been commented, it's not necessarilly valid to simply multiply out the individual probabilities as if all the elements were truly independent, since they may not be, and 15^13 is a very big number and an exceedingly bold claim to make. FTFA the chance of a random match between two people is stated as being about 1 in 1 billion, which is roughly what I've seen quoted before for the type of test currently used by the Forensic Science Service.
Now you throw in the effect of the Birthday Paradox [wikipedia.org],
Upping the what now? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, I would think that you are probably in luck.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens at 100% crime detection rate! (Score:1)
And when it reaches 100% nobody is safe.