3 ms·
A commenter named "Godfroi Shagnasty" notes that the headline of this article is misleading because DNA as evidence isn't in question in this article. Rather, t
by striking 11y ago
A commenter named "Godfroi Shagnasty" notes that the headline of this article is misleading because DNA as evidence isn't in question in this article. Rather, the fallible thing is the process by which law enforcement analyzes DNA matches in "mixtures" of DNA from multiple people like the kind found on doorknobs and such.
Although the headline is highly editorialized, it's clear that DNA evidence is just as fallible to bad science as any other form of evidence and that we must treat all forms of evidence with respect and skepticism if we are to find the truth.
1 in 40 false matches rather than one in a million, throughout thousands of cases? Outrageous.
- skybrian 11y agoI don't think the heading is misleading or editorialized, just abbreviated. DNA is just a chemical. The headline is referring (in an abbreviated way) to the process of DNA testing. Analyzing the results is part of the process. If the analysis is wrong, the results are wrong.
- striking 11y agoIn my view, it implies that DNA as evidence is entirely not useful, and as DNA doesn't change, DNA will never be useful as evidence. However, since DNA analysis techniques are mutable, it is possible for DNA analysis to be useful, as long as it is used correctly. I believe there is a difference.
- sampo 11y agoMaybe "math is fallible" would have been a better title. Not because math itself is fallible, but because they used math wrong.
- pjtr 11y agoHow about "labs are fallible"? I think the point is, while forensic "science" are still using lie detectors and other very questionable techniques that just can not work reliably, it's a bit strange to paint DNA itself as fallible. DNA can work, if the lab is competent. Lie detectors and other voodoo can not.