| |
|
I was interested to read that an Israeli group has demonstrated that it is possible to generate DNA samples which match a specific individual's DNA profile, even without access to samples from that individual. The team were both able to modify one persons' blood and saliva samples to match a second person's, and to create samples that matched a person's DNA database profile without ever having access to that person's tissues. The journal is restricted access, so for those with trouble there's discussion here and here.
While the purpose of the research seems to be to justify a kit to distinguish between real samples those fabricated samples fabricated by their method (produced by a spin off the lab is associated with), it still raises questions about the extent to which we are becoming reliant on DNA information, from paternity, genetic compatibility and the threat of it being involved in insurance and e.g. mortgage applications at some point in the near future, through to the use of DNA evidence as something which is publically percieved as somewhat infallible.
Furthermore, while the authors suggest that the methods to fabricate samples are simple and involve widely used skills and facilities, the kit they utilise involves distinguishing natural DNA from (synthesised) 'amplified' DNA by means of detecting DNA methylation (a chemical modification that dampens down gene activity, regulating expression in vivo), the role of this modification means that synthetic methylation of DNA is a blossoming research field, and it's not hard to imagine that there will soon be a day when methylation profiles can also be faked. Also I'm not clear just how much DNA one would need to determine such a methylation profile, compared to a normal DNA test, nor how stable such modifications are, and how this might impact on archeo or paleogenetics, or dealing with older crime scenes?
Obviously fabrication of DNA is only worthwhile if the people working on it have an agenda, so setting up redundancy systems where each sample is processed by independent groups and the results compared could probably sidestep much potential criticism. But thinking back to things like the OJ Simpson trial, I can see this potentially undermining the position of DNA evidence within the roster of tools police have at their disposal. |
|
|
