DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show

[Gutboy Barrelhouse]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html?_r=1


Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.

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.

“You can just engineer a crime scene,” said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. “Any biology undergraduate could perform this.”

Dr. Frumkin is a founder of Nucleix, a company based in Tel Aviv that has developed a test to distinguish real DNA samples from fake ones that it hopes to sell to forensics laboratories.

The planting of fabricated DNA evidence at a crime scene is only one implication of the findings. A potential invasion of personal privacy is another.

Using some of the same techniques, it may be possible to scavenge anyone’s DNA from a discarded drinking cup or cigarette butt and turn it into a saliva sample that could be submitted to a genetic testing company that measures ancestry or the risk of getting various diseases. Celebrities might have to fear “genetic paparazzi,” said Gail H. Javitt of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University.

Tania Simoncelli, science adviser to the American Civil Liberties Union, said the findings were worrisome.

“DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints,” she said. “We’re creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology.”

John M. Butler, leader of the human identity testing project at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, said he was “impressed at how well they were able to fabricate the fake DNA profiles.” However, he added, “I think your average criminal wouldn’t be able to do something like that.”

The scientists fabricated DNA samples two ways. One required a real, if tiny, DNA sample, perhaps from a strand of hair or drinking cup. They amplified the tiny sample into a large quantity of DNA using a standard technique called whole genome amplification.

Of course, a drinking cup or piece of hair might itself be left at a crime scene to frame someone, but blood or saliva may be more believable.

The authors of the paper took blood from a woman and centrifuged it to remove the white cells, which contain DNA. To the remaining red cells they added DNA that had been amplified from a man’s hair.

Since red cells do not contain DNA, all of the genetic material in the blood sample was from the man. The authors sent it to a leading American forensics laboratory, which analyzed it as if it were a normal sample of a man’s blood.

The other technique relied on DNA profiles, stored in law enforcement databases as a series of numbers and letters corresponding to variations at 13 spots in a person’s genome.

From a pooled sample of many people’s DNA, the scientists cloned tiny DNA snippets representing the common variants at each spot, creating a library of such snippets. To prepare a DNA sample matching any profile, they just mixed the proper snippets together. They said that a library of 425 different DNA snippets would be enough to cover every conceivable profile.

Nucleix’s test to tell if a sample has been fabricated relies on the fact that amplified DNA — which would be used in either deception — is not methylated, meaning it lacks certain molecules that are attached to the DNA at specific points, usually to inactivate genes.

[NiX]

Circling The Drain - DNA Evidence?

[Yegolev]

I remember some article about how DNA evidence is actually far, far less reliable than puported, so I'd say circling the drain in the public eye, while clawing at the drain for people who Know.

[NiX]

On a serious note, I'd imagine it would be awhile before this has any bearing on DNA evidence use in a court case. How would you even begin to debunk a fake DNA sample?

[Gutboy Barrelhouse]

I am sure we will see this as a plot line in a future ep of a CSI:

[Nebu]

Any scientist worth their salt knows the reliability risks with DNA evidence.  What will be interesting is to see how this affects the legal process. 

[Hawkbit]

Now what the hell is Maury going to do?

[K9]

The underlying principle of the current DNA fingerprinting methods is really rather simple. I think that these fellows are probably slightly overstating their point regarding then ease with which you can duplicate DNA fingerprints; but it's not really that surprising that they reckon they can contaminate or frame someone using DNA.

What we're likely to see in the next years is a migration to true-sequence, rather than sequence-length identification methods, as high-throughput sequence methods will permit rapid sequencing of DNA. This will likely be defeated in time.

Ultimately DNA has never been definitive evidence. It has been, and will generally continue to be, a strong piece of evidence, but I'd agree that anyone convicted based on DNA evidence alone probably has grounds for appeal. This won't kill DNA as evidence, just as fake fingerprints haven't killed fingerprints as evidence.

[HaemishM]

Dr. Frumkin is a founder of Nucleix, a company based in Tel Aviv that has developed a test to distinguish real DNA samples from fake ones that it hopes to sell to forensics laboratories.

Did you all miss the part about this guy trying to sell a test that debunks fake DNA tests?

[Pennilenko]

The underlying principle of the current DNA fingerprinting methods is really rather simple. I think that these fellows are probably slightly overstating their point regarding then ease with which you can duplicate DNA fingerprints; but it's not really that surprising that they reckon they can contaminate or frame someone using DNA.

What we're likely to see in the next years is a migration to true-sequence, rather than sequence-length identification methods, as high-throughput sequence methods will permit rapid sequencing of DNA. This will likely be defeated in time.

Ultimately DNA has never been definitive evidence. It has been, and will generally continue to be, a strong piece of evidence, but I'd agree that anyone convicted based on DNA evidence alone probably has grounds for appeal. This won't kill DNA as evidence, just as fake fingerprints haven't killed fingerprints as evidence.

Holy fucking shit, there's fake fingerprints?

[Sheepherder]

It's possible to lift a duplicate of a print off a surface, depositing it would simply be a matter of causing the oils to release from the medium.

[Samwise]

If you were a sufficiently well-funded criminal, I'm sure you could use a lifted fingerprint to fabricate a physical copy of the original and use that to stamp out as many fakes as you wanted.  Anything can be faked with enough time and money.

[gryeyes]

Its not even cost prohibitive. Requires some super glue a laser printer and time.

[TheWalrus]

Yeah, if all these criminals start becoming biology majors, we're fucked.

[Righ]

Dr. Frumkin is a founder of Nucleix, a company based in Tel Aviv that has developed a test to distinguish real DNA samples from fake ones that it hopes to sell to forensics laboratories.

Did you all miss the part about this guy trying to sell a test that debunks fake DNA tests?

I was going to quote the same part and say much the same thing. This is akin to companies that sell information security products and whom spread FUD about negligible risks in order to drum up trade. The next stage is to emulate the anti-virus makers who employ virus makers via fronts to create a market for their products.

[Hindenburg]

Yeah, if all these criminals start becoming biology majors, we're fucked.

You should worry about prosecutors on crusades, not criminals.

[Righ]

Yeah, Nancy Grace is probably ordering a DNA fabricating toolkit from Nucleix's black hat partner as we type.

[tazelbain]

So now every CSI is going to have an episode about faked DNA.

Abby:  The DNA matches the suspects DNA profile.
Gibbs:  So, he did it?
Abby:  You'd think that but you'd be wrong. "Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence..."

[TheWalrus]

So now every CSI is going to have an episode about faked DNA.

Abby:  The DNA matches the suspects DNA profile.
Gibbs:  So, he did it?
Abby:  You'd think that but you'd be wrong. "Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence..."

Damn fine effort sir, but that would be NCIS not CSI.

[fuser]

[lamaros]

 

[Kitsune]

Yeah, I sort of doubt that falsified DNA is going to be at all relevant unless a government or major corporation is involved.  Your average 'drug deal gone bad' murderer isn't going to have prepared fake DNA to try to send the cops after a red herring.  What you do have to worry about is if there's somebody the government really, really, really wants to take down, and DNA evidence 'just happens' to make a convenient appearance to back up their case.

[tazelbain]

I have to tell you: it was taking up to 6 months to grow clones of the saps I framed for my crimes. This is going increase my turn around time up quite a bit.

[Broughden]

Yeah, I sort of doubt that falsified DNA is going to be at all relevant unless a government or major corporation is involved. 

Thats the scariest part.

Instead of torturing you for information now they can just place your fabricated DNA at the scene of a crime...BOOM you're a murderer or child molester or anything else they want people to think of you. Best way to get rid of those who are your political enemy.


This shit is scary!

[Trippy]

It's easier just to obtain a real sample of DNA from somebody and plant it somewhere (yes I watch too many forensic shows).

[schild]

This shit is scary!

Not really.

It's easier just to obtain a real sample of DNA from somebody and plant it somewhere (yes I watch too many forensic shows).

This.

Honestly, I think it's going to be easier for lawyers to get people off on a flimsy alibi. I mean, "Your honor, that DNA might not even be real."

It's a whole new world of "meaningful doubt."

[UnSub]

For a career criminal or one with a bit of planning, I'm sure planting fake DNA evidence has already been considered. A while back I saw a scientist put some different 'fake' DNA samples onto a staged crime scene on TV with the thinking that it creates reasonable doubt even if they find his 'true' DNA.

Also, that article suggests DNA can be found in hair. I was fairly sure it only comes from hair follicles, not the hair itself. Someone please educate me if I'm wrong.

[Righ]

CNN's Anderson Cooper show had a piece on this, where they repeatedly used the term "junk science" to refer to forensic science.

Researchers in Israel today said they were able to engineer DNA, basically fabricating the building blocks of a person's genetic code, and placing the fake sample at a crime scene. Now if true, it could be a remarkable development. It's also a troubling one.

DNA has been used to exonerate hundreds of people who were wrongly convicted. Tonight, as we begin a series of reports on forensic science -- junk science often -- we have a story of how it put an apparently innocent man behind bars for decades and how a crime lab in Texas was allegedly responsible.

[Yegolev]

You have to admit that people were never wrongly jailed before this DNA nonsense came about.

[gryeyes]

For a career criminal or one with a bit of planning, I'm sure planting fake DNA evidence has already been considered.

The greater the complexity the more things that can go wrong. Attempting to fuck around with false leads is just one more thing tying you to the crime and one more thing you can fuck up. Even if it works you are not in a better position than leaving no evidence of any kind. Unless you are like a master assassin and the deception is required.

As someone stated before its the l "The man" you should be more concerned with.

[Triforcer]

Every defense attorney in America just felt a warm, joyful flush over their hearts.  If they can get juries to believe this, its going to get a lot more difficult for prosecutors to make certain types of cases. 

[Paelos]

So this means OJ really didn't do it?

[tazelbain]

SVU is doing a show with this.