Horenziak 1

Anya Horenziak

Casey Flores

English Comp. II

23 October 2021

DNA in Forensic Testing: Literature Review

Forensic science is a very broad topic when it comes to crime solving. It includes

surveying the crime scene for evidence they can use to help solve a crime, and then testing the

evidence. The most interesting way of testing is DNA testing. DNA is an acronym for

deoxyribonucleic acid which, on a very basic level, holds all your genetic information. It is

made up of chromosomes that are unique to you and you only. Since DNA is found in all of

your cells, scientists can use hair, sperm, blood, fingernails, saliva, microscopic skin cells, and

more to pull your DNA from an object you encountered. According to Ben Haywood who wrote

“Sampling the Evidence”, scientists use enzymes to break down your DNA into “segments”, that

contain your specific strand of DNA, are then compared to other segments to check for a

possible match. But how has technology allowed for further advances in forensic sciences?

Obviously, this technology has not been around forever. DNA was first discovered in

1869 by James Watson and then later, Francis Crick discovered the more commonly known helix

shape (Cino). Using blood samples has been a common practice in forensic science for more

than fifty years (DNA Technology in Forensic Science). While all of the sources claim different

cases as the “first one” to use DNA testing, they all agree that it wasn’t until around the 1980’s

that it became an “identification tool” (Cino). Since then, DNA has become a huge part in

convicting people involved in crime, and also proving some people innocent.
 Horenziak 2

Taking DNA from a crime scene has been a controversial topic since fingerprinting became a

common practice. It used to be that DNA evidence was not even accepted in a court trial as

evidence. Jessica Cino says there are certain standards, that even to this day, the evidence must

reach. She continues by quoting a rule courts must follow when it comes to using DNA

evidence: “judges must find that the DNA expert’s scientific evidence is ‘reliable and relevant,

both in theory and in the expert’s methodology.’” Going further, as new technology emerges, we

face issues with dept and ethical issues. Familial DNA profiles have helped to solve many cases,

but becomes harmful when we accidently uncover unknown and unwanted information

(Dresser). Again, as new technology is developed, restrictions also need to be developed. More

and more DNA testing options have been developed over the years as well. Phenotyping is a

type of DNA profiling that allows scientists to predict what physical traits a suspect has by

submitting their DNA into a computer program. We can now even retrieve DNA from objects a

suspect has touched by removing tiny skin cells.

Using DNA to solve crimes nowadays is a critical step in convicting someone of a crime.

In most cases, DNA evidence is the surest way of finding if someone is guilty or innocent.

However, courts have had a rocky relationship with this new type of convicting evidence. As

stated before, there are rules officials must follow before brining DNA evidence into a trial.

According to Jessica Cino, these rules were set by a court ruling coming from a case called

Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. Basically, this court ruling “created a new

standard” that needed to be used when DNA evidence was involved in a case (Cino). The

evidence must be able to demonstrate that is can prove or disprove a fact in court, ultimately

effecting the outcome of the case (National Research Council). Cino even states that almost all

of DNA evidence brought to court is scrutinized before it is even allowed to be part of the trial.
 Horenziak 3

While both of these sources are discussing the same topic, the National Research Council has

more credibility over Cino because they are a known organization.

Even with these new standards, these rules do not protect the privacy of those whose

DNA is being evaluated. Some types of DNA tests reveal more than just who a person is. They

can also show you what types of diseases you are susceptible to, genetic trains, and

“predispositions” (Dresser). According to Dresser in her article titled “Families and Forensic

DNA Profiles”, there is a possibility police could uncover things that the family may not really

want to know. The example Dresser uses in her piece is finding out through genetic testing that

you are not related to a family member you believed you were related to. In cases like this, it is

obvious there needs to be more regulations on what officers can and cannot do during crime

investigations.

Over many years, more and more types of DNA testing have arisen and allowed for

scientists to make extraordinary breakthroughs. The book The Evaluation of Forensic DNA

Evidence mentions two different types of DNA typing methods: VNTR Profiling and PCR-Based

Testing. However, it does not thoroughly explain what each test is. According to the book, this

type of testing is very reliable and highly recommended. In fact, “no state or federal court has

held that VNTR profiling is inadmissible on the grounds that it is not scientifically accepted or

sound” (National Research Council). That quote proves that VNTR profiling is a wildly

accepted form of DNA testing within court trials. However, the same is not true for PCR based

tests. According to the National Research Council, this type of testing is a newer form of testing,

meaning the courts have seen less of it. If we compare the two, VNTR have smaller genotype

frequencies compared to PCR (National Research Council).

Another advance in DNA technology is called phenotyping. Phenotyping is the most

fascinating one found in any of the sources. What makes this technology so interesting is it

allows scientists to guess what a person will look like just based on their DNA. According to

Jessica Cino, “phenotyping refers to a technique used to determine an individual’s physical

characteristics based on his or her genetic profile.” Scientists can predict eye color, skin color,

hair color, facial features, race, age, and even age, and then produce a photo of that predicted

person (Matheson). Because this is a relatively new process, it is not always 100% accurate.

According to Matheson in her article “DNA Phenotyping: Snapshot of a Criminal”, when one-

hundred tests were performed, 75% of them came back accurate. Also, Matheson says this

technology will not be accepted in court as quality evidence because someone with blonde hair

and blue eyes could be anyone.

Some misconceptions found while researching and from general knowledge were very

few. The main one is if your DNA is found at a crime scene, you are automatically guilty. From

listening to podcasts, doing research, and watching tv shows, I can say that is not true. DNA

evidence is never the only evidence needed to convict someone. While it may look bad that your

DNA is there, skin cells from a hug can be found on the victims clothing. While it is a great tool

to help solving cases, it is not the only thing needed to say someone is guilty.

So how have advances in technology helped forensic science? One way is providing

tools to help scientists create a genetic profile that may look just like their perpetrator. DNA

testing can also help prove someone’s innocence in a crime. During future research I would like

to see how media such as podcasts and TV shows have affected this field of science. As a true

crime junkie, myself, and seeing in some of my sources, bits of information about media, I would
 Horenziak 5

like to know if that information is valuable or not. I would also like to dig a little deeper into

what other types of tests and what exactly they are as well.
 Horenziak 6

Works Cited

Cino, Jessica Gabel. "Tackling Technical Debt: Managing Advances in DNA Technology That

Outpace the Evolution of Law." American Criminal Law Review, vol. 54, no. 2, spring

2017, p. 373+. Gale in Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link-gale-

com.sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/A491804496/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=bookmark-

OVIC&xid=c43223c7. Accessed 17 Oct. 2021.

DNA Technology in Forensic Science. United States, National Academies Press, 1992.

Dresser, Rebecca. "Families and Forensic DNA Profiles." The Hastings Center Report, vol. 41,

no. 3, May-June 2011, p. 11+. Gale in Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link-gale-

com.sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/A268403512/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=bookmark-

OVIC&xid=c5ce68f3. Accessed 17 Oct. 2021.

Matheson, Susan. "DNA Phenotyping: Snapshot of a Criminal." Cell, ScienceDirect, 25 Aug.

2016, www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(16)31067-4?_returnURL=https%3A%2F

%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867416310674%3Fshowall

%3Dtrue#relatedArticles. Accessed 17 Oct. 2021.

National Research Council (US) Committee on DNA Forensic Science: An Update. The

Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence. Washington (DC): National Academies Press

(US); 1996. 6, DNA Evidence in the Legal System. Available from:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232607/

"Sampling the Evidence." The Age (Melbourne, Australia), 19 Apr. 2004, p. 12. Gale in Context:

Opposing Viewpoints, link-gale-com.sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/A285159677/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=1e0fbf4a. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021.