The basics of forensic DNA testing and ethics behind

Although DNA testing is something that is used primarily by scientists who can use and interpret the results of DNA and testing processes, DNA in recent years has become a fantastic tool for use in forensic science. Used by police forces to try and determine what many of the suspects could be the one who is guilty, this form of testing is to collect evidence and a unique method of near flawless show who is the culprit. However, the science behind forensic DNA testing by the general population is usually left unknown. So, what really happens?

Forensic DNA Testing - Example

For the sake of this information, assume a person has been raped and murdered, and there are a number of potential suspects. Who did it? He was the boyfriend, or was it someone else? Suppose there is a semen sample obtained from the clothing or the victim. Semen carries the spermatozoa carrying the DNA and therefore, can perform a gel electrophoresis the DNA sample to search for and compare the DNA fragments that appear.

A gel electrophoresis, in layman's terms, is where the laboratory DNA fragments by the use of an endonuclease, and then sends an electric charge through the DNA. The fragments move the gel according to their molecular charge, molecular weight, and a number of other factors. However, this gel is not just that you need a forensic scientist. What they're looking for is the comparison between the DNA taken from the rape victim, as well as DNA from her boyfriend (if you are obligated to provide a sample) and the DNA found in the other suspects. If the forensic scientist then compares the gels and observed that the seed is not the boyfriend, but someone else is likely that a potential suspect has been identified.

Forensic DNA Test - And 'ethics?

However, this is an effective and ethical? The argument is that a quarry would be ineffective, given the range of evidence to underpin the accuracy of DNA testing. The example above, and wider use of this technology, enterprise support an argument that DNA is a very useful method to determine who is guilty in the case of a crime scene.

Since the human genome was mapped, and scientists are able to determine, more and more personal information, like what diseases you may be genetically predisposed to from your DNA, it becomes much more of a personal problem. The subject with DNA databases is that it is storing information that can be used for more than a simple identification. The argument then becomes 'ethics should get in the way of determining who is really guilty?'

Reaching down to the constitutional rights of individuals and the government's position on the issue. We are more likely to see a push by authorities to give more power to law enforcement to be able to collect DNA samples with more ease and then populate the databases further. The larger the database the more likely it is to identify a suspect and solve a crime. However, human rights argue that it is a violation of privacy and the collection of DNA samples should be limited. The debate continues .......