New DNA technology could reveal who committed a crime in less than an HOUR

[phasma]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2005960/An-end-traditional-crime-dramas-New-DNA-technology-reveal-committed-crime-HOUR.html

Suspects could be identified within minutes of committing a crime thanks to new technology developed by forensics experts.

The portable, high-speed equipment uses specially developed rapid profiling techniques to identify DNA from blood or tissue samples at the scene of a crime in a matter of minutes.

Currently, DNA samples have to be carefully lifted from any crime scene and transferred to a laboratory. The National DNA Database can then take several days to match a sample with a suspect.

LGC Forensics, which has developed the speeded-up technique, said it will give detectives a vital head start in their hunt for criminals.

Company managing director Dr Steve Allen told the Daily Telegraph: 'Within 60 minutes of taking a sample it can produce a profile which can be transmitted to the DNA database and come back with a match.

'It could also be used in border control situations to check whether two people who say they are related really are. We also envisage it being used to help identify disaster victims.'

Police are now testing out the RapiDNA system, which could become operational next year.

The technique 'bypasses' a number of DNA steps to make the process quicker and cheaper.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2005960/An-end-traditional-crime-dramas-New-DNA-technology-reveal-committed-crime-HOUR.html#ixzz1PzST5ja7

[fred.greek]

There are though minor problems with DNA evidence… a few strands of your hair, scrapings from your skin, mucus from a tissue you used to blow your nose, can all “plant” evidence… and, while I cannot recall the site, it is possible to artificially leave a DNA signature of someone if you happen to have any access to their DNA, or their official profile, such as from a paternity test, where they were never near the location, AND you never had a sample of their DNA, just a test profile….

[Monkeypox]

There are though minor problems with DNA evidence… a few strands of your hair, scrapings from your skin, mucus from a tissue you used to blow your nose, can all “plant” evidence… and, while I cannot recall the site, it is possible to artificially leave a DNA signature of someone if you happen to have any access to their DNA, or their official profile, such as from a paternity test, where they were never near the location, AND you never had a sample of their DNA, just a test profile….

Yes, there is technology that can take a tiny amount of DNA and copy and multiply it.  Great for framing someone.  And how can they defend themselves if you have "their"  DNA at the scene of a crime?

[phasma]

DNA amplification is easy for sure - but with this thing it is not needed ! I use older tech regularly in my lab and we request samples (for scientific research - not forensics) be sent to us at 0.1nanorams per ml ! That is vanishingly small !

I got to thinking last night about whether or not the UK gov has been sneakily taking DNA samples from every person in the UK decades and storing it - how? well , the "heel prick" test done on all newborns for "PKU" (Phenylketonuria).

They test EVERY NEW BORN BABY for this rare (from wiki: The mean incidence of PKU is about 1 in 15,000 births, but varies widely in different human populations, ranging from Turkey with 1 in 2600 births (the highest rate in the world), through 1 in 4,500 among the population of Ireland[24], 1 in 13,000 in Norway[25], to fewer than one in 100,000 births among the population of Finland.[26] The incidence is relatively high in Italy and China, and Yemeni populations.[27] ) disease.

There are other diseases with a higher prevalence that they do not test for - additionally there are other symptoms that would be indicative of this disease early on - so why does our cash strapped govt fund this?

What do you all think?

[fred.greek]

DNA “evidence” just means that a tech finds a particular pattern in a test.  Actual DNA can readily be “planted”.  “Replica” DNA can be planted that shows a false-positive match.  I opine, that today, it is easier to fake the presence of someone with DNA than to fake their fingerprints… and fingerprints can be faked…

[John_Back_From_The_Club_O]

NEW CORRUPTION WILL REVEAL HOW A HAM SANDWICH COMMITTED A CRIME IN LESS THAN AN HOUR.

[The Way of Things]

NEW CORRUPTION WILL REVEAL HOW A HAM SANDWICH COMMITTED A CRIME IN LESS THAN AN HOUR.

Listen here, turkey.  I don't know what your beef with ham is, but I'm tired of your bologne.  In fact, I'd say you're just chicken.