Overview
please respond to kenneth with 150 . Please original response no plagarism, no ai no chat bots
DNA Case Study Discussion
18 skin cells. That’s all it takes is 18 skin cells deposited on an object to create a DNA profile of a person. Biological forensic science has come a long way from Gregor Mendel and simply observing what would later be called DNA. Today we have such information that if you touch something we can find out who you are. Thanks to Touch DNA and other forms of technology, we can now further discuss the ideas around not excluding DNA as opposed to matching DNA with variations of mixed DNA. Discussing difficulties in concluding how some DNA ends up on objects even if an individual didn’t committee a crime. Although we have such great advancements in forensic science, is there such thing as too small amounts of DNA and explaining to an investigator or jurors on results. One of the greatest inventions considering forensic science is surrounded around DNA and has attributed to the capture of many criminals and has stopped even more from becoming criminals.
Satisfying while at the same time frustrating, when the DNA profile peak pattern analysis read comes back saying “cannot be excluded.” This result means from the DNA a criminalist may have collected it can’t rule out the suspect but at the same time can’t make a definite decision on the suspect either. In our case scenario we do have some mixed DNA profiles on a knife handle, very small amounts of DNA on a knife handle and the victim's shirt, and this could conclude to a cannot be excluded result. Mixed DNA is hard to match because when you have DNA from multiple sources they intertwine with each other. Not to mention that DNA is a fragile substance and can be broken apart from the touch of others not only mixing in their DNA but also breaking up DNA needed to encourage a verdict on a suspect. With more DNA markers or with less mixed DNA, the results possibly could have been a match, and this is the difference between a criminalist in a lab saying without a doubt we have a suspect pinned or cannot be excluded as a suspect.
One of the difficulties with such an advanced system is always getting DNA from everyone. Even if the individual didn’t committee the crime. Much like the possible suspect in the scenario, granted we don’t know who did it. However, imagine if we are pulling DNA from a possible suspect only to find out the DNA is from a close friend. How about a maintenance man who had just been to the house to take care of maintenance issues. Better yet, imagine being a missionary who came over to talk about our Lord and savior and now your DNA is being analyzed in a lab because you gave a person a warm hug of comfort and your DNA ended up on their shirt. But it is better to have more suspects to rule out than no suspects at all.
Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) was reliable during its period however, Short Tandem Repeats (SRT) is much better for the labs today. The stark difference between the two technologies is the amount of DNA strands you need to create a complete profile. With RFLP, you needed long strands of DNA, and the thing with DNA is how sensitive they can be carrying them from the crime scene to the lab and the elements they might have to endure while just waiting to be picked up. SRT has made it more efficient to create profiles of suspects with the less amount of DNA strands needed yet challenges still arise with very little amounts of DNA being less reliable. When attempting to match DNA to a suspect, a report must be generated, and the report cannot be excluded due to the lack of DNA is different than a report stating a match. Scientific terms were created to not have any confusion between what was/ is being said and what was/ is being received. When giving your findings in a report to an investigator or jury, one must always make sure to use clear and cautious language. Statistics are also needed to show the strengths and limits of the evidence. Some words that are never thrown out in reports are 100% of matches and absolute certainty. The words best used are probabilities that are high or low.