Gavin (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} selfishgene) wrote,@ 2008-07-21 13:41:00 |
|
DNA Trawling
State crime lab analyst Kathryn Troyer was running tests on Arizona's DNA database when she stumbled across two felons with remarkably similar genetic profiles. The men matched at nine of the 13 locations on chromosomes, or loci, commonly used to distinguish people.
via The Agitator
The FBI is disingenuous when they claim Troyer is misusing their database by running unusual searches. As the database becomes larger and it is used more often the chance of invalid matches becomes much greater. A statistical calculation made when the database held a few thousand people is not relevant when the database reaches the millions. The use of DNA for law enforcement and civil actions is still increasing rapidly, this will boost the opportunities for invalid matches.
At the very least database matches must be rejected as direct evidence. If a person is a suspect a second match with the original sample needs to be done.
State crime lab analyst Kathryn Troyer was running tests on Arizona's DNA database when she stumbled across two felons with remarkably similar genetic profiles. The men matched at nine of the 13 locations on chromosomes, or loci, commonly used to distinguish people.
via The Agitator
The FBI is disingenuous when they claim Troyer is misusing their database by running unusual searches. As the database becomes larger and it is used more often the chance of invalid matches becomes much greater. A statistical calculation made when the database held a few thousand people is not relevant when the database reaches the millions. The use of DNA for law enforcement and civil actions is still increasing rapidly, this will boost the opportunities for invalid matches.
At the very least database matches must be rejected as direct evidence. If a person is a suspect a second match with the original sample needs to be done.
