FBI’s DNA Codis database improvement plans come under fire

A major upgrade of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI)DNA database system has come under fire from members of the forensic science community.

The Codis system is used to generate the genetic profiles stored in the US national DNA database.

The FBI wants to expand the number of genetic markers used by Codis to classify individual DNA profiles.

But a former science chief at the bureau says the plan is not being driven by scientists’ needs.

Dr Bruce Budowle, along with colleagues Arthur Eisenberg and Jianye Ge,outlined the objections at the Promega 22nd International Symposium on Human Identification (ISHI) in Maryland, US.

Another scientist told BBC News the changes were vitally important because they would set down how DNA profiles were recorded in the United States for perhaps “the next 20 years”.

While working at the FBI in the 1990s, Dr Budowle helped choose the genetic markers currently used by Codis.

Consultation gap

He says the review is a good idea, but that choosing the right markers for forensic casework is crucial.

He told BBC News the FBI did not sufficiently consult with the forensic science community before making its recommendations.

“The first time around we took a community-wide approach – 21 laboratories rolling up their sleeves and generating data we could analyse and [use to] make decisions,” explained Dr Budowle, from the University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth.

“This time around, they formed a working group of around five [scientists] and an FBI person to decide what the core set should be.

“Should the needs of Codis – our national database system – drive the casework processes, or should the needs of casework drive the Codis processes?

“I would hope the latter is obviously what should be done.”

High profile

The US national database – the largest in the world – currently contains about 10 million offender profiles and has assisted in more than 141,000 investigations.

Codis (which stands for COmbined DNA Index System ) uses a set of 13 genetic markers – known as the “core loci” – to generate individual DNA profiles.

In May 2010, the FBI established a six-strong working group to review the core loci used for database searches. It has now recommended the current set of 13 markers be increased to 24.

The importance of these markers was demonstrated in the case of a British man arrested in 1999. His DNA profile matched that collected in a burglary when compared at six genetic loci.

The suspect spent several months in jail before his lawyer demanded a 10-marker re-test. The suspect differed from the burglary suspect at one of the four additional markers and was set free.

While the probabilities of such chance matches between unrelated individuals are relatively small, they increase as DNA databases grow in size.

In addition, some genetic markers are better for certain tasks than others, said Dr Budowle, who pointed to what he said were inconsistencies in the selection process for the core loci.

Dr Budowle said some of the markers used in the new and old Codis schemes comprised such large fragments of DNA that they can be difficult for forensic scientists to detect in crime scene DNA – which can be prone to degradation, or may only be present in small amounts.

Even if large fragment markers are informative, Dr Budowle said, “if you have degraded samples and you don’t get it, it’s useless”.

He added: “The analysts [in my lab] come to me all the time with difficult cases. They say of the large-fragment ones: ‘Get rid of them because they don’t give results’.”

He also said the new scheme passed over informative markers on the Y (male) chromosome which would be useful for familial searching – a technique used when scientists cannot find an exact match for a sample in a DNA database.

Familial searching relies instead on finding close, but not perfect, matches that might represent close relatives of a suspect.

Continue reading the full story by Paul Rincon Science editor at the BBC News website

Chief Scientific adviser not consulted over FSS forensics closure

The Home Office’s chief scientific adviser was not consulted over the closure of the UK Forensic Science Service (FSS), it has emerged.

Bernard Silverman said he was informed in advance but not consulted “as such”.

Dr Silverman was speaking at a hearing in the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into the closure of the FSS.

But he said that he viewed the process as acceptable because it had been taken on legal and commercial grounds.

The government announced last year that the FSS would close, with as many of its operations as possible being transferred or sold off.

Experts have been critical of the decision, saying it could harm the UK’s position as a leader in forensic science.

The service analyses evidence from crime scenes in England and Wales, but has been losing about £2m a month. The FSS is a 100% government-owned company, which is expected to compete in the forensic marketplace.

Asked by the committee’s chair, Labour MP Andrew Miller, whether he had been consulted, Dr Silverman replied: “I was informed and so was [the government's chief scientific adviser] John Beddington… but we weren’t consulted, as such, in advance of the decision being made.

“We were informed so that when the decision was [announced] we were tipped off in advance.

“My understanding at the time, and now, is that the decision was made on legal and commercial grounds. It isn’t within the chief scientific adviser’s remit to advise on those matters. Therefore, I didn’t see the process as unreasonable.”

In response to the same question, the UK Forensic Science Regulator, Andrew Rennison, commented: “I was aware, a couple of weeks beforehand, but was not consulted. But I am being consulted now.”

By Paul Rincon BBC News Science reporter, Read the full article at the BBC News

Osama bin Laden dead!

Osama bin Laden dead!

 

DNA clears Cornelius Dupree from 30 years in Texas jail

Jan 5 – A man wrongfully convicted of rape and robbery in the U.S. state of Texas has had his case overturned and has been cleared by DNA evidence after 30 years in jail.

Read more on this case on BBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Yahoo News.

World peace with forensic archaeology?

World peace with forensic archaeology!  Is it possible?

While world peace might be a bold claim in terms of forensic archaeology all on it’s lonesome, peace is somewhat part of what what the profession is about. Besides the general digging up of dead bodies or retrieving body parts during mass disasters and major incident investigations, there is in my opinion a deeper meaning to this area of forensics.

Forensic science in general is concerned with using science for the law and is used (generally speaking) to fight crime in order to render people accountable for their wrongdoings as well as provide a form of closure for victims.

In essence, forensic science is there to provide the best possible scientific evidence in support of a legal dispute. Be that civil cases or criminal investigations.

Forensic archaeology continues to be used in the detection and excavation of mass graves in relation to war crimes and genocide investigation. These include some of the worst atrocities known to man and beg belief when looking at the psychological and social motives for such crimes.

On an ethical basis it absurd that someone would want to do such horrible things to another human being and yet as a species, we are no strangers to war and death.

Without straying any further from the point, forensic investigations could be regarded as a safeguard for people. After all forensic archaeology is part of a system in support of the police and other law enforcement agencies.

Consequently forensics is participating as a driving force towards a utopian society where ultimately, after having achieved world peace, it would no longer be necessary to have said profession! While this may not happen in the immediate future, or maybe ever (given the grotesque nature of our species), this should not diminish our efforts in trying to reach this objective.

This positive course of action has been happening in all areas of our society for a long time. Just look at how we are dealing with global warming and taking positive steps towards sustainable and environmentally friendly living.

As we live in an ever increasingly populated world, forensic archaeology and forensic science can act as a deterrent to some criminals and therefore bring us slightly closer to a world in which we can live side by side (at this point you can get out the hippie flower necklaces), acknowledging our differences but above all, living in harmony.

That’s a vision of world peace I could live with.

Many Thanks and peace to all,

Alex

To find out more about our FAO writers and contributors contact us.

Isotope Analysis

A developing field in forensic anthropology is stable and radioactive isotope analysis.

In archaeology comparisons of quantities and ratios of elements present (for example comparing the ratio of radioactive carbon 14 with it’s more stable carbon 12 and 13) within the body can get be used as a way of aging skeletal remains.  Due to elemental variations in location and diet, it is possible to use similar analysis to estimate where an individual comes from.

The relatively simple analyses can be made on a number of bone or soft tissues and yield information regarding the whereabouts of an individual. By performing the analysis on various parts of the skeleton it is possible to gain geographic information about an individual at various stages of their lives.  Analysis of elements such as Strontium, calcium or carbon in dental enamel may reveal details of the person’s younger life while analysis of hair may reveal the location within the last few weeks or months prior to death.

Isotope analysis is increasingly being used in drug related crime investigation therefore may be of assistance in identifying drugs (Giblin, 2008; Bergslien et al, 2008; Fantle and Bullen, 2008; Shibuya et al, 2006).

Image curtesy of freedigitalphotos.net

Overuse of the term ‘forensic’

The definition of “forensic” literally means pertaining to the law, however the term has become increasingly overused by the media and consequently the general public.  There are an exhaustible list of techniques from different ologies (read disciplines) such as fingerprinting or archaeological methods that can be used forensically to investigate crimes.

Often the term is misused to describe methods or techniques that are not related to a court of law simply because it is cool.  The distorted use of the term has been amplified by the CSI effect and the media in general, adding to the misinterpretation of your average Joe Bloggs.

My gripe is when television programmes, newspapers and online media make reference to using forensic techniques for other uses…..What? For example using forensic techniques for an archaeological excavation on episodes of Channel 4’s Time Team. Despite the fact that time team has done a lot to bring archaeology to the masses, and for that we should be thankful, if you are no longer using a technique with legal implications then it ceases to be forensic.

Using forensic techniques in other fields actually means using methodologies that have been developed specifically for forensic science in other fields. Meticulously searching for a needle in a haystack does not mean that you are looking for it forensically. Likewise if you happen to come across a bronze age skeleton, say in your back garden, that was supposedly murdered it, this does not automatically warrant the title of forensic but is in fact archaeological since it is more than one hundred years old.

Those who know better should take it upon themselves to make better use of the word “forensic” in its proper context in order to ensure continued precision within the field and outside.