3 ms·

> As John Oliver commented last month... That pretty much says it all. This is like requiring the manufacturer of glassware used in the labs to hand over thei

> As John Oliver commented last month... That pretty much says it all. This is like requiring the manufacturer of glassware used in the labs to hand over their proprietary manufacturing information, or all the evidence processed by the lab must be thrown out. The glassware can be verified to work properly given appropriate testing, etc. So can the software without looking at the source. In fact, treating the software as a black box and employing appropriate testing without consideration as to what's in the box - just what the box should be able to do - should lead to more confidence. The real issue here is whether there is such a certification / testing process that the tool meets that can be independently verified.

rbobby 9y ago
> In October, the Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology announced that it would embark on a study to determine the reliability of DNA testing, including the algorithmic methods used by companies like TrueAllele. This research, which NIST says is to establish “foundational validity,” has been condemned by Perlin specifically through a post on the Cybergenetics blog, which calls the study “wasteful, “unnecessary,” and “meaningless.” Perlin argues that True Allele’s validity has already been proven through scientific, peer-reviewed research studies. But these studies that Perlin relies on are internal validation studies that were paid for and run by Cybergenetics. It is a bit unsettling that NIST wants to independently test “foundational validity” but the company founder is so dismissive of the idea.