Death knell for DNA profiles? The following is a copy of an email (25 April 2003)I sent to the inventor of DNA profiling. He had replied to my previous two technical queries but not to this email --------------------------------------------------------------- To Prof Sir Alec Jeffreys Since your reply to my query last year I have learnt a lot about DNA profiling Recent report by Reuters concerning your recent speech. "At the moment, we have a criminal DNA database ( NDNAD ) of about 2 million profiles in the UK," he told reporters, as scientists met at Britain's top scientific body, the Royal Society, to celebrate the discovery of DNA 50 years ago. "The real problem in a typical crime is that even if you get DNA from a crime scene, you can't pick up a suspect because they don't have a record. So one possibility is to extend the database to include the entire population." These are the principal reasons against such a move Unrelated false matches -cases where two unrelated people have the same DNA profile. Except for twins DNA is unique but not DNA profiles. Ask Raymond Easton of Swindon whether he thinks the NDNAD should be expanded Newspaper report http://tinyurl.com/aac4 or original URL http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/wiltshire/archive/2000/08/15/swindon_news10 ZM.html Then again just in the last few months ask Peter Hamkin of Liverpool, newspaper report http://tinyurl.com/9dzd or original URL http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/page.cfm?object id=12718961&method=full&siteid=50061 [Then in May 2003 another one - the Goettingen incarceree http://213.159.10.102/germany.asp?pad=190,205,&item_id=31550 ] Lack of reported independent validation This is the last publicly reported proper validation exercise in DNA profiling in the forensic literature that I can find. By proper I mean dividing up some samples ,sending to 16 (in this case) different laboratories ,testing blind and collating the results Forensic Science International vol 86 (1997) p25-33 Threre were 448 datapoints and an error rate of 17 in 448 or 1 in 26 . Some not just 1 allele out but some 2 alleles out from the "true" profile. Frankly I am amazed this report ever got published. Unresolved matches in the NDNAD (National DNA Database) From Forensic Science International 95 (1998) p30. Concerning data in the UK DNA database as of 04 October 1996 when there were only 6311 samples from the London area and 573 from the Cardiff area. "A small number of unresolved duplicate pairs of profiles were present in the regional data :10 pairs within the London region and 1 pair in Cardiff. The most common cause of duplicate entries is the use of aliases by suspects who have been arrested on several occasions. For administrative reasons ,it is not always possible to resolve such duplicates by exhaustive police investigation." This published statement is absolute tosh. At the same time a DNA sample is extracted from an arrested person his conventional fingerprints are taken as well. It could not be easier to cross-correlate conventional and DNA fingerprints from 2 data sets. The chances then of a false matching of both types of "fingerprint" would truly be in the trillions to one against. I have a scientific background and the idea that such anomalies are not immediately and thoroughly investigated is an insult to the wider scientific community. These unresolved false match numbers have increased to 300 now according to ch4 documentary "DNA in the Dock". Not resolved because the results would be devastating to the FSS (Forensic Science Service) Too close for comfort The median profile for a UK caucasian (data from various FSI and Int J Legal Medicine articles 1997 to 2001) is (17,17)(9.3,9.3)(13,14)(21,21)(29,30)(14,14)(A,B)(11,12)(14,14)(15,16) for loci VWA,THO1,D6,FGA,D21,D18,D2,D16,D19,D3 Now my own DNA profile (caucasian) slightly altered for obvious reasons (17,19)(8,9.3)(13,13)(20,22)(29,29)(13,15)(18,19)(12,12)(12,14)(16,18) still a bewildering array of numbers but taking the differences between both sets of numbers one gets a normalised profile of (A,B assuming D2 allele 20 as triple peaked allele frequencies at 17,20 and 24) (0,2)(-2,0)(0,-1)(-1,1)(0,-1)(-1,1)(-2,-1)(1,0)(-2,0)(1,2) This normalisation process starkly shows how close my profile is to the "average Joe" with a consequential much increased likelihood of being arrested just because my profile matches some scene of crime sample somewhere in ,now, Europe (post Hamkin) not just the UK. That is before factoring in errors in arrestee or crime scene profile, co-ancestry or possible non-independence of alleles across loci. I just hope the "average Joe" with normalised all (0,0)s is flagged up on the NDNAD. You won't be surprised to learn that I find the construction,expansion and trawling of the NDNAD absolutely repugnant. ----------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sir A. Jeffreys" [...@leicester.ac.uk ] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:35 AM Subject: Re: DNA Database and s82 of the 2001 Criminal Justice and Police Act................
Sooo... you've posted this exact same content all over Usenet, diminishing your credibility all the while. What makes you feel you'll be more successful at SciForums? Background for SciForums members: Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Usenet Postings :m: Peace.
