The Trouble with DNA Kits

With all the advances in DNA analysis and the public's belief that DNA analysis is infallible, I would be hesitant to put my name in the hat as a possible suspect. We all leave DNA traces behind, and by mischance, may touch something that later appears at a crime scene.

People whose job it is to solve crimes are under a lot of pressure. Investigation generally proceeds in two phases, trying to find who might be guilty, and when a prime suspect is identified, making a case by gathering evidence to prove that the prime suspect is guilty. If a mistake is made in the first phase, the second phase can result in a miscarriage of justice. There is a human tendency to avoid throwing away a lot of hard work to start over.

Maybe I'm paranoid, but an unscrupable individual could easily commit a crime and plant your DNA to be found later.

ala' the "Catch Me...If you Can" killer?

I did submit my sample late last year to one of the companies, and yes, I do have some Viking in there...

The validity of the process was confirmed to me when it identified one of my first cousins, who had submitted her sample to the same company using her married name, so they couldn't use my family name to find her. She is the only relative I'm aware of who had submitted a sample to that company. Apparently, the various companies doing DNA testing do not currently share data. Whether they should depends on your point of view, and perhaps on your culpability...

Sooner or later, someone will probably be wrongly convicted of a crime via some form of DNA testing, but I believe that the number of people who already have been and will be exonerated via DNA testing easily makes it worth the risk

I agree that a world with DNA testing is a lot better than one without. DNA testing, properly done, lowers the odds of the innocent being convicted and the guilty acquited. That makes it a good thing, but history shows that people usually find a way to misuse anything. So, I'll go with the odds and not put anything out there that may come back to bite. Paranoia is a survival trait, IMHO.

I had a similar experience to you. Both my sister and I submitted our samples to the same company, months apart, hers under her married name. I only submitted mine because there were rumors in the family that I "may" have been fathered by someone other than the man (now deceased) listed on my birth certificate. The test proved the 60+ year rumor wrong.

After I submitted mine, they, within days, notified me that I had a sister in the database and identified her perfectly. Since then I've been notified of third, fourth, and fifth cousins with a very similar heritage to mine, which originated in a very small targeted area in eastern Europe.

Hooker

I have a friend that got an Ancestry,com DNA kit. He took the test and got some interesting information; however, nothing to do with medical history or conditions. He did, however, have his identity disclosed to " interested" individuals.

I have no interest in disclosing my identity, specifically, on a "social media" website.

Join the group and take the test at your own peril.

The amount of information one gets from these tests depends significantly on how much one pays. You have to pay extra to get any information beyond ancestry. I didn't.

I never post anything on social media, unless CR4 is considered social media...

Can one trace ancestry to Adam or Eve, according to Christian belief, or to the Seven great Rishis, that were supposed to be the ancestors of all Hindu clans?

Does DNA has limitation of generations? Does DNA follow the rule that even acquired characters are inherited ?

The whole exercise of DNA, however useful in criminology, appears suspect, in other facets of life, or am I totally wrong ?

There are definitely limits to what DNA can reveal, at least right now. I suspect that will always be true, although there will clearly be improvements over current technology.

Posts #3 and #5 have both confirmed the validity of the information obtained from recent DNA testing.

By definition, an acquired characteristic was not present at birth, so was not associated with the parent's DNA. I'm no expert in this area, but I'd be extremely surprised if that characteristic could be passed on to the next generation.

On the other hand, if that acquired characteristic leads to some desirable result, such as longer life or a more attractive appearance, there is a significant probability that other unrelated individuals will also acquire that characteristic.

Two of us here in this thread have independently verified the accuracy of the results of DNA testing. What makes you call it suspect? ...and why should it be more or less reliable in criminology than in any other area of interest?

Does DNA tests of any individual, lead to Adam or Eve ?

As per Indian belief, Seven great Rishis, were the ancestors of seven clans. Are there just seven types only ?

Where does this DNA lead us to ? Is it only a good tool for criminology or creates a new employment avenue for many ?

You just used the key word: "belief".

It appears that all religions are based on "belief". "Belief" places trust in others, with no requirement for proof.

DNA is science. Science demands proof.

Very well put! "Belief places trust in others."

In the law enforcement arena I have a great deal of mistrust due to personal experience which cost me Time and money to correct. Many in law enforcement have misplaced incentives, believing they are "just doing their job" when actually they contribute to injustice by not being thorough enough with facts. By believing the easiest answer and proceeding to look only for proof it is true. Police, including those responsible for booking and holding individuals have, or should have, a responsibility to use common sense research to verify whether persons should be jailed. In my case a misguided Judge swore out a warrant for my arrest for an 8 year old traffic ticket which had been satisfied believing I was to have appeared in court when that was not the case. Something that small was carried to the extreme of incarceration in an out of state jail leaving my wheelchair bound wife and daughter with the burden of attempting my bail while I was actually placed in chains to prevent my 70+ year old body from escaping. My belongings had been confiscated, including cell phone there-by making communication impossible. Finally a $1000 bail was placed at a charge of $80 ATM fee plus a $250 Lawyer fee to find the judge's error.

So will DNA be used for justice? Sometimes. Maybe.

The jury is still out on that one. However, mitochondrial DNA studies point to a single female ancestor in Africa with a fair level of confidence. There is some controversy over evidence that there may be a second ancestral line out of the Yellow River valley in Asia that may have a distinct genetic line. Considering that most people of European descent have about 3% Neanderthal DNA on board, it appears homo sapiens will sleep with about anything that moves and ancestry will have some strange turns that will fall out of the tree if shaken properly.

There was some show like Who Do You Think You Are where just about everybody genetically was related in some way to Barbara Walters.

There is also some evidence supporting a period of time where the human species nearly went extinct with a total population of about 6000 individuals.

Haven't heard of any evidence for seven distinct mitochondrial DNA lines yet, but that may change.

An odd thought or two just came to me.

Did the seven Shiva's have a common mother? As in the twelve tribes of Israel. Then the mitochondrial DNA makes sense regardless of the backstory.

Second: Since the mitochondrial DNA carries from the mother and all known evidence still leads to a single female from Africa, then it was homo sapiens females sleeping with Neanderthal males that got the 3% Neanderthal DNA into the European gene pool. In order to stay enlightened and sensitive I can make no further comment.

Big Brother is us.

Welcome to the 21st C.

Chances are your DNA is already on record without your knowledge. Anytime You've given a urine sample or a blood sample, who knows where else that data is stored besides some medical lab because the doctor needed lab work. They're already involved with Government since they are asking on their forms you fill out as a new patient if there is a gun in the house. I think they might know how long that DNA sample had been left behind to start the screening process.

I'm no expert in this area, but I do know that the equipment required for DNA testing is very different from that required for checking cholesterol, drugs, or blood sugar. I suspect that there are very few, if any, hospital labs that have DNA testing equipment.

There have undoubtedly been cases where a fraction of a blood or urine sample was surreptitiously sent off to a DNA lab, hopefully under court order, but I sincerely doubt if that is common.

No form I've ever filled out ever asked if there is a gun in the house.

I'm just saying the sample is already given. Who knows who all gets to test the samples. All they have to do is send in a smear on a card to some agency that does examine the DNA.

I have never even considered sending in any sample for analysis. I don't see the point in doing so. I know my lineage, on my father's side back to 1620. Mother's side, not so far, only back as far as 1884, all through the old fashioned family trees which someone kindly kept up. Anything beyond that, I really don't need to or want to know.

As for releasing details to the proper authorities, I am all for it. After all, if the "authorities" has to conduct all the testing, that would be an additional cost for all us tax payers to pony up.

What ever the fallibility aside, I still have to ask whether DNA samples are now being taken from all (tourists?) trying to illegally enter across the U.S.-Mexican Border?...

...or, do they have to commit a second crime for their DNA to be sampled?...

Speaking of reliability ... I just saw this story:

https://interestingengineering.com/consumer-dna-testing-company-gets-duped-by-dog-dna

Perhaps, we have to admit that the ultimate (?) particles, any organic or inorganic body are made up of are the electrons and protons. For the time being, let us forget the further division into mesons, gluons and what not.

After reading the story of a Dog's DNA. given as human's, I feel whether there is any point in going deep into the ancestry through DNA method.

With proliferation of knowledge and lack of employment opportunities, people do devise more avenues, and perhaps, this DNA is one such.

In my mother tongue, Telugu, there is a saying that would translate roughly 'A barber with no job, shaved a cat'.

Reminds me of a scandal in Japan a few years ago. If I recall correctly, poodles were the stylish pet of the day and a Korean businessman was grooming sheep and selling them as poodles.

Similarly, decades ago, there was a community in (Japan?...) that wanted to formally change it's name to ''Usa" with the expressed purpose of becoming legally allowed to identiffy all their manufactured goods as ''MADE IN USA'' but (government) stepped-in to prevent that (I think...).

Similarly, there was a crackdown in Italy about two years ago. In one case a Chinese company had purchased a factory building and populated it with illegal Chinese immigrants kept effectively as slave labor. This was done so that the company could mark the products as made in Italy.

I can't help but wonder if the person taking the dog's sample may have somehow contaminated it with their own DNA, sufficiently that the process could detect the contamination.

Is it common for Canadians to French kiss their Chihuahuas?

In actuality it's not that big a mistake to misidentify the DNA. The companies are looking for gene markers, which are short sections of DNA that react with a marking molecule. Chimpanzees have a genome that is about 98% identical to homo sapiens. I'm not sure how much canines have in common with homo sapiens, but it is certain that the marker proteins will match enough of the time to give funny results. A common issue with forensic matches is that sometimes the markers are on contaminating bacteria and a false match can come from a common contamination. More than one lab has had all their results thrown out for that reason.

I suspect that the type of test to identify the creature type is not made, saving money for both customer and company.

As the tests are only intended for humans, really its not needed.

Furthermore, if I remember correctly, we all have a "set" of DNA, a set pertaining to humans. But a set for a dog, is not that different really:-

Humans and dogs (Canis familiaris) are identical in about 84% of their DNA.

There is a value of around 50% gene-share between banana and humans! (I have known some people with possibly more!!).

A comparison of Clint's genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our DNA. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats.

I am not surprised at all.

I have no problems with that at all.

Only criminals might have an ax to grind, maybe some will reform, hopefully.

The positive uses for DNA include many different things.

Finding relatives.

Being warned early about possible illnesses like heart disease and diabetes.

Providing bone marrow for people who need it.

Providing other useful body parts after a death.

Helping doctors to find cures for certain illnesses.

Are just a tiny few, and I am sure that I have missed many more positive effects.

(I have not read through any other answers here, so someone may have already said what I say here, sorry!)