Subscription Center
Aug 18, 2009 01:45 PM | 15
Unlike finicky fingerprints and frowned-upon fiber analysis, DNA evidence has been the most bulletproof evidence for forensic sciences in recent years. But staffers at a research firm in Israel have recently upended the presumed infallibility of this forensics golden child—by making it themselves.
Nucleix, a Tel-Aviv-based life sciences company, was able to create credible DNA evidence that could be used to finger the wrong person, proof that even genetic evidence can be manipulated (beyond planting a hair or used cigarette) just like other physical traces.
"You can just engineer a crime scene," Nucleix founder Dan Frumkin told The New York Times. "The current forensic procedure fails to distinguish between such samples of blood, saliva, and touched surfaces with artificial DNA, and corresponding samples with in vivo generated (natural) DNA," Frumkin and co-authors wrote in a recent Forensic Science International: Genetics study that announced the technological achievement.
But, don't worry, like a hacker taking down servers to sell cyber security services, Nucleix has a fix: a system that can detect the difference between natural and manufactured DNA. It looks for a lack of methylation; an addition of methyl groups to DNA occurs naturally in genetic code, but it isn't found in Nucleix's manipulated DNA.
To make the fake DNA, all the researchers needed was a small sample of the DNA they wanted to plant (such as that from hair or lingering in saliva left on a discarded coffee cup) and blood from a donor. Donor blood was centrifuged to separate DNA-containing white cells and DNA-free red cells. The researchers then expanded the filched DNA into a larger sample size via whole genome amplification and added it to the DNA-free red blood cells from the donor. Poof! Blood that matched the genetic profile of the person to be framed—not the donor—was created.
Nucleix was also able to replicate a deceptive double helix just by working off genetic profiles in a police database. Building a small collection of common genetic variations—425—for different genome points, they were able to drum up a fabricated sample.
"Any biology undergraduate could perform this," Frumkin told the Times.
Of course, others are voicing doubts that many criminals could replicate such technical processes. "In my experience, the people that we arrest for murder, rape, robbery, child molestation, generally don't have a very good foundation in molecular biology," legal analyst Dean Johnson told San Francisco's ABC News 7. But, notes Johnson, in a "real stretch," attorneys could employ these findings to argue against the use of DNA evidence in court.
In the meantime, concern about disproportionate trust of DNA testing is mounting, notes American Civil Liberties Union science adviser Tania Simoncelli. "DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints," she told the Times. "We're creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology."
Image courtesy of iStockphoto/danishkhan
Tags:
forensic,
DNA
More News Blog:
Next: Dodeca-mom could smash multiple birth record with 12 babies
Previous: Marijuana growers started California wildfires
See what we're tweeting about
mdichristina Wrapping up some corporate meetings and then off to Heathrow. Much too short a time in London!
BoraZ RT @sci2mrow: RT @praeburn: Assoc of Brit sciwriters promotes press junket--a serious violation of journ integrity. http://t.co/OsroqdkSWQ
FlyingTrilobite Considering using my neglected Flickr in different ways thanks to @ThePeej and @Myrmecos .
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
15 Comments
Add CommentWait, so the fake blood sample doesn't contain white cells, and the DNA which is present is found outside the nuclei... wouldn't this all be fairly easy to spot, without even analysing the DNA itself?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissounds like a business plan too: sell this technology to interested individuals who want to frame someone (and afford the cost) and then sell research labs the fix ("a system that can detect the difference between natural and manufactured DNA")
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOMGs you can fake anything . . . . wait is that news?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was just a matter of time . . . answer understand the current tech in faking and making sure you can detect it. . . like any other field.
This is absolutely shocking if not utterly eerie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn one stroke, it could kill the DNA evidence as the most crucial proof in any homicide.
Let’s hope that Nucleix would uphold its claim in distinguishing the real DNA from the fake ones. Be prepared for more legal tussles then.
OK, let me see if I understand this. All this takes is 500k in molecular biology laboratory equipment (it is not cheap and "basic" is a relative term), the place to put it along with the power to run it, and a degree in molecular biology, not to mention reagents that cost in the thousands, and DNA evidence can be planted? Well, I can see how this modest proposal on how to plant evidence is going to stop criminals from leaving someone's glove at the crime scene given how easy all this has become.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's takes a bit more than just DNA to solve any crime. Besides, check out the company name...from Israel,....named Nucleix,... a Tel-Aviv-based life sciences company. Thoes guys are soooo...honest over there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is possible and MUCH easier to plant fingerprints and I have not heard of cases being thrown out due to "potential fake fingerprints" . This is just a scare tactic and a business ploy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think it's a scare tactic and it will certainly lead to the questioning of evidence. If it can be done in a laboratory, it can be done in real life- whether or not it is actually done. It is quite a business plan, pointing out the flaw in the system and presenting the solution- but I suspect this is now going to be the big thing in court cases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough the lack of blood cells is an obvious check- it's not something that is usually checked for. Why check the blood cell composition? You're not looking for disease, you're testing DNA.
And in response to the expense and training required to perform this- it doesn't rule out the possibility. Just the probablility. While the suspect probably didn't have access to such things, they might have. That doubt is probably enough to let someone free. Not to mention, such equipment can be found at any university or molecular bio research laboratory- so it's not really that uncommon.
I was just watching an episode of Law and Order: SVU and they mentioned this technology which caused me to Google it and here I am finding the exact information they used in that episode down to the company in Israel. The fact of the matter is that any university biology student who is familiar with molecular biology has access to the equipment to do the things described. I think this may now prompt a change in protocol in DNA labs to ensure that the evidence was not fabricated. I.E. in the past no one checked for the presence of white blood cells, now it may be a standard request by a DA of the lab to ensure that the defense won't be able to challenge the evidence on grounds of possible fabrication. It looks as if the technology of DNA evidence is truly "evolving."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis may turn out to be a good thing in that now scientist will begin looking for ways to make DNA more "Fool-proof" or should I say "Fabrication-proof."
Wouldn't it be easier to get a sample and clone it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll I've been able to find about this is that it's always a fake "blood" sample. What about semen/sperm? Can they fake that DNA?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't see how fake blood DNA will make or break a case. Guess what, anyone could get a real blood sample from anyone who had blood tested or donated, and plant it as evidence, i've also heard of condoms being stolen from the trash and planted in rape cases as well as donated sperm (bought lawfully) and planted to throw off the police.
The one question I have is rather or not they can do this with semen samples in rape cases. How about skin samples that a victim might have under their fingernails from scratching an attacker? I guess the point is that not in all cases will blood be the source of DNA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisall I know is that general excrement fetish play works best with willing slaves that can take the horrid stench, and almost want to drink like a whirlpool or something. I know it sounds heavy, but anything less is just a fairy whore. My slaves must swallow whole my waste and give a brown smile, . but thats me.. Hail satan and shut up, thankyou.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.suppervideo.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ligtvtr.net
http://www.emeklisandigi.gen.tr
http://www.18sex.info
http://www.altinoluktr.com
http://www.diziizle1.net
It is really hard to tell but faking it, does it mean it has being altered already? <a href='http://www.perfectwatches.net'>rolex replica</a>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this