Comments on: Modern Forensic Science And the Danger of Contamination http://depletedcranium.com/modern-forensic-science-and-the-danger-of-contamination/ Bad Science And Scary Science Wed, 23 May 2012 13:24:13 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Hela cells http://depletedcranium.com/modern-forensic-science-and-the-danger-of-contamination/comment-page-1/#comment-35190 Hela cells Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:22:49 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=2263#comment-35190 Forensic science has a very high profile on TV and across the media in general. This profile includes both real world references to forensic science in such programs as The First 48, and fictional references to forensic science most notably in shows such as CSI, CSI Miami etc. Forensic science has a very high profile on TV and across the media in general. This profile includes both real world references to forensic science in such programs as The First 48, and fictional references to forensic science most notably in shows such as CSI, CSI Miami etc.

]]> By: Jifford http://depletedcranium.com/modern-forensic-science-and-the-danger-of-contamination/comment-page-1/#comment-16380 Jifford Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:05:25 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=2263#comment-16380 DNA is important, as important as fingerprints as a development in crime science. DNA can be amazingly effective in some cases and especially rape, because forign semen on a rape kit is a slam dunk for good dna of the rapist. There is still the issue of putting it in context though. One can't take it alone and needs to ask the questions like could it have gotten there by another means or is there another explanation like bad collection etc. There is another disturbing side to this called the CSI effect. Juries are known to put so much weight on forensic evidence it becomes a trump card to convict even when other evidence indicates there could be an issue with it. "His dna was there. He must be guilty." Also, juries now expect forensic evidence. That is very bad because most cases are not built on forensics. Most cases no readable prints or collectible dna is there. Juries want that now and think it *should* be there. Blame OJ Simpson case. Blame the news media. Blame CSI. Whatever, it's a problem. I like to blame CSI because it's a stupid show to begin with. Being on a Jury does not mean being a slueth. You just listen to both sides objectively and try to see what makes sense and whether it is proven. It is a serious duty that people need to take seriously. DNA is important, as important as fingerprints as a development in crime science. DNA can be amazingly effective in some cases and especially rape, because forign semen on a rape kit is a slam dunk for good dna of the rapist. There is still the issue of putting it in context though. One can’t take it alone and needs to ask the questions like could it have gotten there by another means or is there another explanation like bad collection etc.

There is another disturbing side to this called the CSI effect. Juries are known to put so much weight on forensic evidence it becomes a trump card to convict even when other evidence indicates there could be an issue with it. “His dna was there. He must be guilty.” Also, juries now expect forensic evidence. That is very bad because most cases are not built on forensics. Most cases no readable prints or collectible dna is there. Juries want that now and think it *should* be there.

Blame OJ Simpson case. Blame the news media. Blame CSI. Whatever, it’s a problem. I like to blame CSI because it’s a stupid show to begin with.

Being on a Jury does not mean being a slueth. You just listen to both sides objectively and try to see what makes sense and whether it is proven. It is a serious duty that people need to take seriously.

]]> By: memememe http://depletedcranium.com/modern-forensic-science-and-the-danger-of-contamination/comment-page-1/#comment-16248 memememe Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:37:02 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=2263#comment-16248 It looks like the HeLa is an infection of sorts whose natural carrier is the genetic biologist :) It looks like the HeLa is an infection of sorts whose natural carrier is the genetic biologist :)

]]> By: DV82XL http://depletedcranium.com/modern-forensic-science-and-the-danger-of-contamination/comment-page-1/#comment-16142 DV82XL Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:55:50 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=2263#comment-16142 [quote comment="16140"]Question that is off topic: If I understand correctly, the HeLa cells are from a woman in the 1950's whose cancer was used to culture cells for research and now the cells have adapted by their own evolution to be especially good at living in artificial culture so that they can invade other cell cultures in the same lab or area. If that is the case, why not just stop using the HeLa cell line? Surely there are other people around who an have their tumor used for some research cells. If a laboratory never uses the cells and doesn't trade cultures with labs that do then it would seem like it minimizes the chances.Also, if they've adapted so much then are they even still worthy subjects of in vitro research?[/quote] There are many strains of HeLa cells as they continue to evolve by being grown in cell cultures, the problem is that they have already contaminated over forty other cell lines so they are not that easy to get rid of, or avoid.

        Magic Donuts said:

Question that is off topic:

If I understand correctly, the HeLa cells are from a woman in the 1950’s whose cancer was used to culture cells for research and now the cells have adapted by their own evolution to be especially good at living in artificial culture so that they can invade other cell cultures in the same lab or area.

If that is the case, why not just stop using the HeLa cell line? Surely there are other people around who an have their tumor used for some research cells. If a laboratory never uses the cells and doesn’t trade cultures with labs that do then it would seem like it minimizes the chances.Also, if they’ve adapted so much then are they even still worthy subjects of in vitro research?

There are many strains of HeLa cells as they continue to evolve by being grown in cell cultures, the problem is that they have already contaminated over forty other cell lines so they are not that easy to get rid of, or avoid.

]]> By: Magic Donuts http://depletedcranium.com/modern-forensic-science-and-the-danger-of-contamination/comment-page-1/#comment-16140 Magic Donuts Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:05:23 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=2263#comment-16140 Question that is off topic: If I understand correctly, the HeLa cells are from a woman in the 1950's whose cancer was used to culture cells for research and now the cells have adapted by their own evolution to be especially good at living in artificial culture so that they can invade other cell cultures in the same lab or area. If that is the case, why not just stop using the HeLa cell line? Surely there are other people around who an have their tumor used for some research cells. If a laboratory never uses the cells and doesn't trade cultures with labs that do then it would seem like it minimizes the chances. Also, if they've adapted so much then are they even still worthy subjects of in vitro research? Question that is off topic: If I understand correctly, the HeLa cells are from a woman in the 1950’s whose cancer was used to culture cells for research and now the cells have adapted by their own evolution to be especially good at living in artificial culture so that they can invade other cell cultures in the same lab or area.

If that is the case, why not just stop using the HeLa cell line? Surely there are other people around who an have their tumor used for some research cells. If a laboratory never uses the cells and doesn’t trade cultures with labs that do then it would seem like it minimizes the chances.

Also, if they’ve adapted so much then are they even still worthy subjects of in vitro research?

]]> By: DV82XL http://depletedcranium.com/modern-forensic-science-and-the-danger-of-contamination/comment-page-1/#comment-16135 DV82XL Thu, 16 Apr 2009 05:44:04 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=2263#comment-16135 Cell line cross-contamination can be a problem for scientists working with cultured cells as well. Studies suggest that anywhere from 15–20% of the time, cells used in experiments have been misidentified or contaminated with another cell line. Because of their avid adaptation to growth in tissue culture plates, HeLa cells are one of the worst and most persistent laboratory "weed" and they can contaminate other cell cultures in the same laboratory, interfering with biological research, and forcing researchers to declare many research results invalid because the cells used were found afterwards to be contaminated The immortal HeLa cell line was derived from cervical cancer cells taken from Henrietta Lacks, who died from her cancer, and were derived for use in cancer research. Cell line cross-contamination can be a problem for scientists working with cultured cells as well. Studies suggest that anywhere from 15–20% of the time, cells used in experiments have been misidentified or contaminated with another cell line. Because of their avid adaptation to growth in tissue culture plates, HeLa cells are one of the worst and most persistent laboratory “weed” and they can contaminate other cell cultures in the same laboratory, interfering with biological research, and forcing researchers to declare many research results invalid because the cells used were found afterwards to be contaminated

The immortal HeLa cell line was derived from cervical cancer cells taken from Henrietta Lacks, who died from her cancer, and were derived for use in cancer research.

]]> By: RBR1978 http://depletedcranium.com/modern-forensic-science-and-the-danger-of-contamination/comment-page-1/#comment-16133 RBR1978 Thu, 16 Apr 2009 05:32:49 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=2263#comment-16133 As I recall there has been some suspicion around this for some time. Worst part might be that if the police were convinced they had a serial murdered on their hands and one crime was related to another then they may have turned a blind eye to potentially useful leads which have since gone cold. I bet a few killers got lucky on this blunder. As I recall there has been some suspicion around this for some time.

Worst part might be that if the police were convinced they had a serial murdered on their hands and one crime was related to another then they may have turned a blind eye to potentially useful leads which have since gone cold. I bet a few killers got lucky on this blunder.

]]> By: Russ http://depletedcranium.com/modern-forensic-science-and-the-danger-of-contamination/comment-page-1/#comment-16124 Russ Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:32:56 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=2263#comment-16124 I read somewhere that they began to suspect contamination a while ago but they knew something was a miss when they found the same DNA result on swabs relating to an unknown male corpse. They were trying to identify a body from a fire so they tried to recover DNA from items that belonged to individuals who were missing in order to compare them to the corpse. I don't know the details but I know sometimes they do that with toothbrushes or something to try to identify remains. Anyways, when the result started showing up as a hit to this female serial killer, they knew for sure something was up. Sorry, I don't have the link for that and I may have gotten a couple of details wrong, because this was about a week or two ago that I saw it. Apologies for just my hazy recollection on this. I read somewhere that they began to suspect contamination a while ago but they knew something was a miss when they found the same DNA result on swabs relating to an unknown male corpse. They were trying to identify a body from a fire so they tried to recover DNA from items that belonged to individuals who were missing in order to compare them to the corpse. I don’t know the details but I know sometimes they do that with toothbrushes or something to try to identify remains.

Anyways, when the result started showing up as a hit to this female serial killer, they knew for sure something was up.

Sorry, I don’t have the link for that and I may have gotten a couple of details wrong, because this was about a week or two ago that I saw it. Apologies for just my hazy recollection on this.

]]> By: gman http://depletedcranium.com/modern-forensic-science-and-the-danger-of-contamination/comment-page-1/#comment-16123 gman Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:54:24 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=2263#comment-16123 I wonder if the polizei came down on the Austrian q-tip worker like a ton of bricks, only later finding out the real reason why her DNA was on 40 murders? That could be a terrifying ordeal. One false move and they blow her away... Or did they figure out who she was by eventually considering the contamination angle, and checking the swab factory workers? I wonder if the polizei came down on the Austrian q-tip worker like a ton of bricks, only later finding out the real reason why her DNA was on 40 murders? That could be a terrifying ordeal. One false move and they blow her away… Or did they figure out who she was by eventually considering the contamination angle, and checking the swab factory workers?

]]> By: Chem Geek Gregor http://depletedcranium.com/modern-forensic-science-and-the-danger-of-contamination/comment-page-1/#comment-16122 Chem Geek Gregor Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:23:43 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=2263#comment-16122 I read about the case of Gary Leiterman and based on the evidence I think he is *probably* guilty, but if I were on the jury I would have had a lot of trouble convicting him. Just too much reasonable doubt. The whole thing with a microscopic sample is that there could be an alternate explaination for how it might have gotten on someone, even if not contaminated. He could have hocked a loogie onto a park bench or something, if he lived in the same area. DNA alone doesn't mean someone should be convicted. It means that the person was there or that they crossed paths with the victim or something. It doesn't mean that they committed the crime. That's what has to be proven is that there is no other way the dna could have gotten there. It's like finger prints. If a finger print is found in the bathroom of a house where someone is killed and that fingerprint belongs to a plumber who had fixed a leak a few days before it certainly does not mean that they killed the person. If it belongs to someone who never had reason to be there though, then it's more suspicious. I read about the case of Gary Leiterman and based on the evidence I think he is *probably* guilty, but if I were on the jury I would have had a lot of trouble convicting him. Just too much reasonable doubt. The whole thing with a microscopic sample is that there could be an alternate explaination for how it might have gotten on someone, even if not contaminated. He could have hocked a loogie onto a park bench or something, if he lived in the same area.

DNA alone doesn’t mean someone should be convicted. It means that the person was there or that they crossed paths with the victim or something. It doesn’t mean that they committed the crime. That’s what has to be proven is that there is no other way the dna could have gotten there.

It’s like finger prints. If a finger print is found in the bathroom of a house where someone is killed and that fingerprint belongs to a plumber who had fixed a leak a few days before it certainly does not mean that they killed the person. If it belongs to someone who never had reason to be there though, then it’s more suspicious.

]]>