• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
© Sarah Don, Australia, 2008
 
DNA
 
F
INGERPRINTING
 
The discovery of DNA fingerprinting revolutionised criminal identification and forensic science. Justlike ink fingerprints, DNA fingerprints are unique to every individual and can be used as legalevidence in court to prosecute or defend alleged criminals. In paternity cases, DNA fingerprintingtechnology can be used to identify or rule out persons as biological parents of a child. However, thedevelopment of this technology has given rise to a number of ethical debates including whether aperson can be forced to give a DNA sample for analysis and who should gain access to such personalinformation. Also, the concept of a DNA database raises questions about personal privacy and civilrights, although it could be a key contributor to genetic research. Scientists are consistently findingnew ways in which the applications of DNA can be expanded.The structure of DNA (deoxyribose nucleic acid) was first discovered by Dr JamesWatson and Francis Crick in 1953. Its double helix structure is made up of phosphate, sugar (deoxyribose) and pairs of bases
 – 
adenine always with thymine,and cytosine always with guanine (as shown in figure 1). The double helix iswound around itself many thousands of times to form
chromosomes
. Each of the23 pairs of chromosomes is made up of different sections of DNA called
genes
andeach one of these genes is responsible for a particular feature or process in thebody. For example, there is a specific gene for blue eyes, and another for greeneyes. Most of the human genome is the same for everybody
 – 
every individual hasa liver, a heart, and produces certain proteins that catalyse chemical reactions in thebody. Only 0.1% of human DNA is unique to each individual, as discovered byProfessor Sir Alec Jeffreys.In order to isolate this section of DNA, an enzyme isused to scan along the DNA to look for a particularpattern in the bases (Eg. AAT). The enzyme cuts theDNA every time this pattern occurs so that the DNAends up in many tiny pieces. Because this section of DNA is highly variable between individuals, the lengthof the pieces of DNA cut by the enzyme will bedifferent for every person. The DNA fragments are theninserted into wells in a tray of hard polymer gel(apparatus as shown in figure 2) and an electric current is passed throughthe gel so that the different sized pieces of DNA separate, depending ontheir length, to form a
 DNA fingerprint 
(as shown in figure 3). This processis called electrophoresis and is used in forensics laboratories for comparingDNA samples.The development of DNA fingerprinting allowed for faster and moreaccurate identification of suspects in criminal investigations. For example,blood found at the scene of a crime contains white blood cells that contain
DNA (red blood cells don‟t have a nucleus and
consequently
don‟t contain
any DNA). Forensic scientists can then take a sample of the blood, isolatethe unique section of DNA and perform electrolysis to make a DNAfingerprint. All tried and convicted criminals have their DNA fingerprints ina database so they can be easily identified if they re-offend. However, there
Figure 1
 –
Thestructure of DNA(Genelex, 2006)
Figure 2
 –
Electrophoresisapparatus (Ussery, 2000)
Figure 3
 –
DNA fingerprints(Peri, 2008)
 
© Sarah Don, Australia, 2008
 
may be more than one set of DNA at a crime scene. For example, the victim may have bled, thecriminal may have left hai
r behind and there could be traces of people‟s DNA left from days, months
or years before the crime from sneezes or sweat. Apart from the samples taken from the scene,forensic scientists have to take samples directly from the victim, any suspects, and anyone whofrequented the crime scene before the crime occurred in order to rule out the innocent people. Also,any police officers, detectives or forensic scientists who enter the scene of the crime have to takespecial precautions so that they do not contaminate the area with their DNA. Unfortunately for thevictims, defence attorneys can use the argument of contaminated DNA samples in court.A particularly famous case in which the use of DNA fingerprint evidence was questioned by the courtwas that of O.J. Simpson, 1994-1995, who allegedly murdered his ex-wife her friend.
Simpson‟s
defence attorneys argued that the way in which the DNA samples were collected did not meet forensicstandards, hence jeopardising the DNA evidence. (Finkel, 1995) Because of the discrepancies over thecollection methods of the DNA evidence presented in his case, Simpson was not charged with murder.When DNA fingerprinting was first introduced as evidence in court it was regarded as infallible,however the DNA sample collection method has to be closely monitored to make sure it is notcontaminated, in order for it to be used as reliable evidence in court. Although the 0.1% of DNAsampled to make a DNA fingerprint is highly variable between individuals, there is still a 1/100,000chance that two unrelated DNA fingerprints could match. However in the context of a crime scenethere is almost no chance of finding two people locally with identical DNA fingerprints. (Finkel,1995) Identical twins also challenge the reliability of DNA evidence in court. Identical twins aremonozygotic
 – 
developed from the same zygote
 – 
so they share the same DNA. If twins wereinvolved in a criminal investigation all DNA evidence concerning them would be void because therewould be no way of telling the difference between a DNA fingerprint from either of the twins.DNA fingerprinting can also be used to resolve paternitydisputes. DNA samples are taken from the mother, child, andalleged fathers, and electrophoresis is used to create DNAfingerprints of all the samples. When the DNA fingerprints
are compared, all the nodes in the child‟s DNA fingerprint
must match up with nodes from either the mother or thefather. The child cannot have a single node that has not comefrom either the mother or father. Using this method, potentialfathers can be eliminated.In Figure 4, father number two (F2) can instantly beeliminated because he does not provide the second node thatthe child posses. The child did not get this node from themother (M) so it has to have come from the father, and asfather number two does not possess it, he could not possiblybe the father of the child. Father number one (F1) can also be
eliminated because the child‟s second
-last node did not comefrom the mother, and father number one does not possess iteither. This leaves father number three (F3) as the onlyremaining potential father of the child. As the child does notinherit all the nodes from both mother and father (only acombination) it is not possible to identify a father with 100%certainty. Only eliminations can be made.
M Child F1 F2 F3
Figure 4
 –
Example comparison
of the child’s
DNA fingerprint to that of the mother andalleged fathers in a paternity case
 
© Sarah Don, Australia, 2008
 
In Australia only convicted criminals are required to supply a DNA sample for the national database.Forensic investigators cannot force suspects to give a DNA sample for analysis. However, if there isenough other evidence to suggest that they are guilty of the crime they are suspected of committing, acourt order can be obtained to force the suspect to provide a DNA sample. If a person is suspected of committing a crime and they provide DNA sample, but are then proven innocent, their DNAfingerprint is destroyed and not added to the national database. However, in the situation of a nationaldisaster, having access to a national register of DNA fingerprints
 – 
not just of criminals, but of everyperson in Australia
 – 
would be extremely helpful in the identification of victims as well as missingpersons.One country that has very successfully implemented a national DNA database is Britain. Since itslaunch in 2004, the United K
ingdom‟s
national DNA database has collected over 113,000 DNAsamples from people who have been arrested but not charged. Currently, the database has 5.2% of the
British population‟s DNA on record. However, the inventor of DNA fingerprinting, Professor Sir 
Alec Je
ffreys has concerns about the retention of innocent people‟s DNA, saying that the database
raises significant ethical and social issues. A senior appeal court judge, Lord Justice Sedley, has alsoexpressed his concern, commenting that the database unfortunately places the innocent on par with theguilty. (ScienceDaily, 2008) Many people worry about the security of their DNA profiles, fearing thatif they were to fall into the wrong hands, their DNA profile could be sold or used to steal their identity.However, the U.K. has very strict legislation that restricts who can gain access to the DNA profiles,how they are handled, and what the information is used for, in order to make sure that the databaseholds true to the privacy expectations of the public.Having a national DNA database can also contribute to scientific research. The computers that storethe DNA profiles can search for patterns
 – 
certain traits corresponding with other certain traits
 – 
 which helps researchers to find meaningful genetic associations for particular diseases. Once all thegenes in the human genome have been associated with corresponding features, traits or diseases,
scientists will be able to detect the presence of certain genes from a person‟s DNA fingerprint or 
original DNA sample. This presents a plethora of ethical issues, however
. A person‟s knowledge of 
their genetic predispositions for particular diseases could affect their state of mind and attitudetowards life. For example, if a person has their DNA analysed and finds out that they have a geneassociated with heart disease they may modify their lifestyle out of fear and choose not to participatein activities that they would ordinarily enjoy. This could lead to a whole range of other morementally-inclined illnesses. Al
so, if insurance companies could access their clients‟ DNA profiles and
could see that they had an increased risk of developing breast cancer, for example, the insurancecompany may choose not to insure them for potential medical expenses.The advantages of genetic testing are alsorecognised by the public, however. In a pollconducted in the U.S. in 2007, parents wereasked if they were willing for their child toundergo genetic testing to determine if theywere at risk of developing certain diseases(the results are shown in figure 5). Leadresearcher, M.D. Beth Tarini said
that “some
parents feel that even without a treatment,genetic testing would better prepare them to
deal with their child‟s illness.” Over 4million
newborns in the U.S. each year undergo
Figure 5
 –
U.S. polls regarding genetic testing of children(ScienceDaily, 2007)Willing if there istreatmentavailable39%Willing evenif there isnotreatmentavailable53%Not Willing8%
Willingness of parents to have their childundergo genetic testing for certain diseases
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...