3 ms·

The thing is, it is possible to distinguish samples of DNA in mixtures (and it can work fairly well). But the technique they used to do so was outdated and no o

The thing is, it is possible to distinguish samples of DNA in mixtures (and it can work fairly well). But the technique they used to do so was outdated and no one particularly bothered to find how well it worked. I mentioned in my comment above that their misstep was only applicable to "mixtures" and that DNA analysis as a whole still makes sense. I would not extrapolate the error in the headline across the entirety of NPR, though. The reporting in this article was factual and (AFAICT) unbiased. Although I believe that "soft sciences" as opposed to "hard sciences" exist, and that NPR can be biased (they have been in the past), I do not believe this discredits NPR entirely. The mistake they are reporting allegedly affects thousands of cases. That statement is unlikely to be a result of bias. It is very hard to prevent bias at the publishing outlet level (and very easy to introduce it). I recommend that people get their facts from a number of sources and that they listen to every opinion they can find.

mc32 11y ago
Thank you for the concise clarification. I think one other thing we can take from this is that DNA alone is insufficient to establish guilt, we need corroborating evidence. Just because someone's DNA was probably on a knob does not imply that person was the burglar. Maybe they were a repair person, but they could have been a burglar, if they returned afterwards and broke in, for example. Of course lawyers will point that out, but sometimes people think DNA = guilt. The issue with npr is they like to have the image of being unbiased. If you can suffer through their pledge drives, you hear their listeners fawn and claim them to be the purveyors of truth and unbias and they, the journalists and interns, truly seem to believe they are. Lets say an underdog commits a crime, something if done by a top dog, they would take it at face value) They did the crime, jail them. If it's an underdog, well, maybe there were deficiencies in society which contributed to their criminal behavior and thus perhaps that should be taken into account when they are tried.
justin66 11y ago
> I would not extrapolate the error in the headline across the entirety of NPR, though. The reporting in this article was factual and (AFAICT) unbiased. It's worth pointing out that journalists almost never get to write the headlines for their articles. Headlines often drive them crazy.

mc32 11y ago

Thank you for the concise clarification. I think one other thing we can take from this is that DNA alone is insufficient to establish guilt, we need corroborating evidence. Just because someone's DNA was probably on a knob does not imply that person was the burglar. Maybe they were a repair person, but they could have been a burglar, if they returned afterwards and broke in, for example. Of course lawyers will point that out, but sometimes people think DNA = guilt. The issue with npr is they like to have the image of being unbiased. If you can suffer through their pledge drives, you hear their listeners fawn and claim them to be the purveyors of truth and unbias and they, the journalists and interns, truly seem to believe they are. Lets say an underdog commits a crime, something if done by a top dog, they would take it at face value) They did the crime, jail them. If it's an underdog, well, maybe there were deficiencies in society which contributed to their criminal behavior and thus perhaps that should be taken into account when they are tried.

justin66 11y ago

> I would not extrapolate the error in the headline across the entirety of NPR, though. The reporting in this article was factual and (AFAICT) unbiased. It's worth pointing out that journalists almost never get to write the headlines for their articles. Headlines often drive them crazy.