DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated

[Miramonti]

link

DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show

Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.

The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.

?You can just engineer a crime scene,? said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. ?Any biology undergraduate could perform this.?

Dr. Frumkin is a founder of Nucleix, a company based in Tel Aviv that has developed a test to distinguish real DNA samples from fake ones that it hopes to sell to forensics laboratories.

The planting of fabricated DNA evidence at a crime scene is only one implication of the findings. A potential invasion of personal privacy is another.

Using some of the same techniques, it may be possible to scavenge anyone?s DNA from a discarded drinking cup or cigarette butt and turn it into a saliva sample that could be submitted to a genetic testing company that measures ancestry or the risk of getting various diseases. Celebrities might have to fear ?genetic paparazzi,? said Gail H. Javitt of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University.

Tania Simoncelli, science adviser to the American Civil Liberties Union, said the findings were worrisome.

?DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints,? she said. ?We?re creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology.?

John M. Butler, leader of the human identity testing project at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, said he was ?impressed at how well they were able to fabricate the fake DNA profiles.? However, he added, ?I think your average criminal wouldn?t be able to do something like that.?

The scientists fabricated DNA samples two ways. One required a real, if tiny, DNA sample, perhaps from a strand of hair or drinking cup. They amplified the tiny sample into a large quantity of DNA using a standard technique called whole genome amplification.

Of course, a drinking cup or piece of hair might itself be left at a crime scene to frame someone, but blood or saliva may be more believable.

The authors of the paper took blood from a woman and centrifuged it to remove the white cells, which contain DNA. To the remaining red cells they added DNA that had been amplified from a man?s hair.

Since red cells do not contain DNA, all of the genetic material in the blood sample was from the man. The authors sent it to a leading American forensics laboratory, which analyzed it as if it were a normal sample of a man?s blood.

The other technique relied on DNA profiles, stored in law enforcement databases as a series of numbers and letters corresponding to variations at 13 spots in a person?s genome.

From a pooled sample of many people?s DNA, the scientists cloned tiny DNA snippets representing the common variants at each spot, creating a library of such snippets. To prepare a DNA sample matching any profile, they just mixed the proper snippets together. They said that a library of 425 different DNA snippets would be enough to cover every conceivable profile.

Nucleix?s test to tell if a sample has been fabricated relies on the fact that amplified DNA ? which would be used in either deception ? is not methylated, meaning it lacks certain molecules that are attached to the DNA at specific points, usually to inactivate genes.

 

[OCGuy]

Im about to fabricate some DNA right now.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Im about to fabricate some DNA right now.

TMI!

 

[DaveSimmons]

Arms race:

Nucleix?s test to tell if a sample has been fabricated relies on the fact that amplified DNA ? which would be used in either deception ? is not methylated, meaning it lacks certain molecules that are attached to the DNA at specific points, usually to inactivate genes.

... so there's already a test to detect this.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

?DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints,? she said. ?We?re creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology.?

There was some noise to this effect that was quickly drowned out way back when DNA evidence started showing up in courts. I suspect that a fair number of folks have already been falsely convicted on DNA evidence because of how it's viewed as so infallible. OMG thay haz teh DNA! GILTY!!1!

 

[Lemon law]

I do not know how correct jjsole is here, but why even make an effort, when some charlatan scientists have been nailed for having a track record of totally perjured themselves in court, not running the tests, and simply told the prosecution what they wanted to hear. And the shit hits the fan years later, and then all court testimony they have given in past is suddenly worthless and new trials need to be granted. Even the FBI labs are not immune.

Its simply why independent back up testing and peer review replication is such a valuable tool of science.

 

[JS80]

Didn't they do a movie on this with Kevin Spacey and Kate Winslet?

 

[First]

Old news. They can easily detect if DNA has been tampered with.

 

[Miramonti]

If its this easy, it shouldn't take long to make it into criminal defense attorney's arguments in the very least.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Im about to fabricate some DNA right now.

That's fapricate

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: jjsole
If its this easy, it shouldn't take long to make it into criminal defense attorney's arguments in the very least.

You never heard of OJ?

 

[miniMUNCH]

Please... cops could just shoot the suspect and plant a gun too, etc.

This is simply a dude trying to make money by creating need for a product he patented.

 

[shira]

Hollywood film using an over-the-top version of this fabrication technology within two years, I betcha.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

?DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints,? she said. ?We?re creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology.?

There was some noise to this effect that was quickly drowned out way back when DNA evidence started showing up in courts. I suspect that a fair number of folks have already been falsely convicted on DNA evidence because of how it's viewed as so infallible. OMG thay haz teh DNA! GILTY!!1!

Still a pretty big improvement over the previous system. And its exonerated a number of innocent people after the fact.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

?DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints,? she said. ?We?re creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology.?

There was some noise to this effect that was quickly drowned out way back when DNA evidence started showing up in courts. I suspect that a fair number of folks have already been falsely convicted on DNA evidence because of how it's viewed as so infallible. OMG thay haz teh DNA! GILTY!!1!

whatever, when fingerprints became ubiquitous they were never treated as conclusive proof of anything, just as DNA isn't conclusive proof of anything. I can take a glass someone drank out of and plant it at the crime scene, it takes more than that to convict someone. Means, motive, opportunity, no alibi, etc.

DNA is a tool, and for 99% of the cases out there, just like fingerprints, it's a damn useful one. I strongly, strongly doubt there is "a fair number of folks" who have been falsely conviceted based on manufactured DNA evidence.

Pure numbers wise, the amount of people who can plant fingerprints is just a bit larger than the number who can manufacture dna evidence.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I am in no way saying DNA is junk evidence. I am saying it isn't the slam dunk many, many people treat it as.