
Lab creates fake DNA evidence - jacquesm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=lab-creates-fake-dna-evidence-2009-08-18
======
tsestrich
I like how they conveniently drop the fact that they have a test (that they
can sell) for the fake DNA that they created :)

I don't think that this will in any way invalidate DNA evidence any time in
the near future. Besides, I can't imagine anyone taking the time to prepare or
purchase replicated DNA except for high-profile crimes.

Also, as a former Bio undergrad, I'm pretty sure I couldn't pull something
like this off, lol. Maybe that's just me

------
ajdecon
This is hardly surprising. I don't know of anyone previously setting out to
make "fake DNA evidence", but the synthesis of arbitrary DNA strands has been
possible for a while, and is a common technique in molecular biology labs. The
application to making fake forensic evidence is obvious, if unethical.

This makes DNA evidence comparable to other forms of forensics: generally
dependable, but subject to tampering given enough motivation and resources.
It's inconvenient to lose the "silver bullet", but it never was: law
enforcement has had to deal with cases where people have placed blood, hairs,
etc. on crime scenes before.

The trick now will be to get juries to treat DNA evidence with the proper
amounts of weight and skepticism. Especially since I bet this will show up on
CSI within the year...

------
cousin_it
Why go so high-tech with fake DNA? Just take an actual DNA sample of your
intended stalking horse (e.g. their saliva) and place it in the crime scene.

~~~
jacquesm
For that you need access, for this trick all you need is access to the data,
which will be in some database somewhere waiting to be 'lost'.

Just a couple of hours ago there was this
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=797655> link which argues that is
perfectly ok to share your genetic data.

Genetic data is currently used in two different ways, on the 'consumer' end of
the spectrum there are services like 23andme and a whole bunch of others that
deal with 'markers', genetic configuration bits if you will. These markers are
unique, but not as unique as your genome would be. On the other 'end' is your
full genome, all 4 billion plus base pairs of it.

Your full genome would allow an imposter to create evidence that would match
exactly from data alone.

It's like manufactured diamonds vs 'real' ones. They're both real, in fact the
manufactured ones are usually identified because they are 'too good'.

Once you reach that stage it is not too far fetched to imagine that someone
would be able to fool the tests (according to the article based on
'methylation') that currently distinguish 'real' dna from 'fake' dna.

------
Dilpil
The guy comments that criminals probably won't be smart enough to do this.

Yet plenty of criminals are able to synthesize LSD, ecstasy, and
methamphetamine.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Is it illegal to synthesise partial DNA to match a particular fingerprint? If
not then it doesn't matter if criminals can't do it they just call a lab and
get them to make it up - looks like a good opportunity for a lab that doesn't
care where it gets it's money from; or a sideline for a morally ambiguous
student/lab-tech.

~~~
xiaoma
>Is it illegal to synthesise partial DNA to match a particular fingerprint?

Fingerprints aren't genetically determined. That's why twins have different
prints.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I meant of course, given the field of current discourse, "match a particular
[DNA] fingerprint", as in the assessment of presence of known chemical
structures at particular points in a DNA strand as is used in the field of
criminal investigation.

