DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show

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. source

__________________

 

Wow, that is a phenomenal and portentous discovery, Brown - thanks for the news, great post.

 

Gotta wonder though how long this has been going on. I would imagine its happened in some real high profile military cases or something which has to do with any sort of person who has big money in order to get them out of trouble. If it hasn't, it definitely will be used I'm sure at some point

 

Hmmmm.................. That's going to make life easier for some and difficult for some...

 

That goes to the who is performing the tests but DNA is specific when correctly tested.

 

holy shit johnnie cochran was right

 

DNA evidence has for a long time been misused. The general understanding is that is DNA samples come back as a positive match it is evidence of guilt when in reality it was only evidence that two samples come from the same person. And as juries are made from the general public, that is a worrying misunderstanding.

If I was ever I'm court I'd want whoever was reprisenring me to spend a lot of time explaining the jury exactly what "DNA evidence" is.

Genetics is a groundbreaking science which will ultimately shape our future on this planet in a profound way, it's not particularly good evidence when it comes to determining who commited a crime though.

 

I thought it seems to be pretty old news. During my Post graduation i did read about this while reading about why protection of DNA profiles are required. But yet exciting..

 

I am shocked stOx at this conclusion you have drawn up. DNA evidence is important where the evidence was found in a crime scene and multiple DNA samples helps investigators with finding different leads. At least you can find witnesses that can talk about motive or a person's background before a crime, from other parts of a body not closely associated with the crime.

 

It's excellent when it comes to determining if someone was at a location, or more specifically, if some of them was at a location, but that isn't the same as determining if they committed a crime, And this is the point. The public (the people who decide if you are guilty or not) are largely under the impression that if a DNA sample comes back as positive that it is an indication that the crime was committed by that person.

I would strongly support jurors having half day courses teaching them what DNA evidence is and what it isn't if they are on a case involving it. The two main concepts that jurors need to know is that it's not infallible and it's not an indication of guilt.

 

Guys lets not forget that fabricating DNA evidence is not something everyone can do in his livingroom...

 

The implications of this are staggering. Thanks for posting BT