DNA evidence may not be foolproof

[johnastovall]

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.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...ating_dna.html

A link to another paper:

Researchers have demonstrated it's possible to remove all the DNA from samples like blood and saliva, and replace it with genetic material from a different individual—even when the only source of this material is a used cigarette butt. Their methodology was good enough to fool a lab that does crime-scene DNA testing.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...search-lab.ars

[Imagebuffet]

Deliberate misguidance is deliberate. It should not be necessary to state that a person could falsify DNA evidence, or any other kind of evidence; that should be understood, and steps taken against it. The credibility of the investigators must be untarnished. Unfortunately, people generally are not trustworthy.

[kenw]

the title is highly misleading. DNA is not "foolproof" to begin with, but is relatively very accurate. The science is never settled....

However the title "DNA evidence may not be foolproof" implies a fault of the actual DNA science itself, instead of what is being pointed out ie; that it can be falsified. The root cause fault lies therefore with the process of validating the source or lack thereof. I would suggest a title of "DNA procedures may not be foolproof".

wordsmithing is fun!

[Coelus]

There's not an "e" in potato, Mr. Quayle.

[donlfaulkner]

Originally Posted by Coelus

There's not an "e" in potato, Mr. Quayle.

That depends on which side of the pond you are standing on.