The New York Times reports that it is possible to fabricate blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor, and even to construct a sample of DNA to match someone's profile without obtaining any tissue from that person — if you have access to their DNA profile in a database. This undermines the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases. I am not yet sure what it means to DNA evidence in genealogy.
"You can just engineer a crime scene," said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper. "Any biology undergraduate could perform this."
Tania Simoncelli, science adviser to the American Civil Liberties Union, says the findings were worrisome. "DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints," says Simoncelli. "We're creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology."
The New York Times article is at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html although a subscriber's user name and password is required to access that web page.
I'm surprised this is just dawning on the forensic community. I graduated fifteen years ago with a degree in recombinant gene tech. and could have synthesized "evidence" back then if given the time. Come to think of it, this would be an excellent basis for a murder mystery.
Posted by: Phil | August 18, 2009 at 12:54 PM
It is an interesting topic for a murder mystery, as well as for college science fair projects. But my question is, how difficult is it to modify DNA? If it is very easy then it would be a problem, but if it is difficult and time consuming then only a few people will be able to use this technology to contaminate crime scenes.
Posted by: College Science Fair Projects | August 18, 2009 at 02:36 PM
The problem can only occur if the database is insecure, or the information in the database is accessible by persons other than those who submitted it - and as the LostCousins site demonstrates, it's possible to match people who share the same ancestors whilst keeping their data hidden.
In any case, if you wanted to frame somebody, wouldn't it be easier to steal some of their DNA rather than synthesise it? It certainly wouldn't require a PhD.
Posted by: Peter Calver | August 19, 2009 at 03:38 AM
Nice find. The link to the NY Times article lets me see the whole thing. Check it out for those of you interested!
Posted by: Taylor | August 19, 2009 at 06:19 AM
What does it matter how easy it is? If it's possible then it's usefullness is gone.
Posted by: skidley | August 19, 2009 at 07:43 AM
ACLU, This must be an expensive process. As a cop I know that most officers can't afford to plant evidence in this manner. Just another way to put criminals back on the street.
Posted by: Anthony Smith | August 19, 2009 at 07:55 AM
It would be easy enough to test additional markers not listed in the database, so I don't view this as a problem.
Posted by: Ann Turner | August 19, 2009 at 08:23 AM
Officer Smith has the point: defense attorneys could use this fact to dispute DNA evidence placing a criminal at the scene of a crime. The chain of evidence will now need to be guarded even more closely. Although manufactured DNA could contaminate a genealogical study, I have to wonder if the time and expense would really be worth it.
Happy Dae·
http://ShoeStringGenealogy.com
Posted by: Dae Powell | August 19, 2009 at 08:26 AM
Why bother fabricating DNA at all? Just take a couple hairs off a brush or comb the next time you are at a party in someone's home and intentionally leave that at a crime site. I'd be amazed if criminals were not already doing this.
Posted by: Kenneth Lary | August 19, 2009 at 08:36 AM
The media (TV, movies) have caused the general public to think that this is not only reliable, but possible in every criminal case. Because of this, juries don't find criminals guilty at trial. Juries basically demand DNA evidence now. There are a lot of bad guys on the street because of CSI and other such programs.
Posted by: Art P | August 19, 2009 at 08:42 AM
Read the whole NYT article. It clearly states one can tell what part of the DNA was manufactured:
"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.
It's the old cat & mouse game. Just another layer of testing for forensics and more employment for DNA scientists and lawyers to tell what's real DNA and what's artificial.
Posted by: Jim Castellan | August 19, 2009 at 09:33 AM
Well, DNA has always been a good form of evidence and proof as to really what happened. I believe in DNA, 100%
Posted by: henryyoung | August 19, 2009 at 04:22 PM
Good point, Ann - that virtually eliminates the problem until whole-genome scanning becomes commonplace.
Posted by: Peter Calver | August 21, 2009 at 05:35 AM