DNA Tests of the Future
[Guest post by DRJ]
Thanks to NK, I ran across this article that describes how DNA may one day be used to “construct a physical portrait of a DNA donor, including melanin content, skin color or eye color” as well as height and race.
The process is called DNAWitness and DNAPrint, and it was invented by a UC-Berkeley educated molecular biologist named Tony Frudakis. Here is the starting point to understand Frudakis’ technology:
“The DNA forensic products … [can] only be used to match DNA specimens in the CODIS, or Combined DNA Index System, database which contains about 5 million DNA profiles. If investigators have a crime scene sample but no suspect, they run it against those in the database to see if it matches a sample already on file.
But while CODIS is good at linking the criminals who are already catalogued from other crimes, the system is useless in identifying physical characteristics. It says nothing about race. It has been specifically set up to reveal no racial information whatsoever, in part so that the test would be consistently accurate irrespective of race.
But non-scientific considerations also factored into how the system was established. When the national DNA Advisory Board selected the gene markers, or DNA sequences which have a known location on a chromosome, for CODIS, they deliberately chose not to include markers associated with ancestral geographic origins to avoid any political maelstrom.
DNAWitness, the test Frudakis applied in the Baton Rouge case, uses a set of 176 genetic markers selected precisely because they disclose the most information about physical characteristics. Some are found primarily in people of African heritage, while others are found mainly in people of Indo-European, Native American or South Asian heritage.
No one sequence alone can predict ancestral origin. However, by looking collectively at hundreds and analyzing the frequency of the various markers, Frudakis says he could predict genetic ancestry with 99 percent accuracy.“
DNAWitness and DNAPrint are controversial. Even law enforcement officers who have successfully used these techniques are ambivalent because the process is not widely known, expensive and politically incorrect:
“But even those who believe this can be done are conflicted about whether it should be done. History is replete with examples of injustices and inequities that were conscripted into law based on racial classification. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s succeeded in ending legal racial discrimination, in large measure, by downplaying the significance of race and racial differences. By the mid-1990s prominent academics and sociologists even went so far as to say that race did not exist at all.
“Race is a social construct, not a scientific classification,” said an editorial in the May 3, 2001 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, adding that “In medicine, there is only one race — the human race.”
Then, along comes Frudakis with a science that seems to be saying the opposite. “
The prospects for this technology may be bleak:
“Forensics stinks as a business,” Frudakis says bluntly. “Most of the testing is done by government labs with very little opportunity for private enterprise. If people valued what we did more, we would have the funds to expand the databases, learn about more phenotypes, develop more genetic screens, build more software systems.”
Frudakis still hopes that the company will be able to invest in more research. RETINOME which predicts iris color with 96 percent accuracy is on the market and was used very effectively in the Napa murder case. He has identified the gene sequences associated with height, and has compiled a database of 5000 digital photographs of people with almost every racial ancestry combination — which, one day, he says could allow him to construct a physical portrait of a DNA donor, including melanin content, skin color or eye color.”
We don’t want to take a step backward on race relations but any scientific technique can be misused. The point should be whether the technique is scientifically valid.
— DRJ
NK, how you make me have to think! You are undoubtedly the resourceful man but I can’t agree you wander too much. However, if you and Mrs. NK ever wander down to Texas, I’ll sacrifice some barbecue with you.
DRJ (67ced6) — 10/17/2007 @ 12:08 pm“Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, polytropon, os malla polla planchthe ….”
Anytime, DRJ. No need to sacrifice 100 head of cattle (unless of course you feel like throwing a very big party). 😉
nk (6e4f93) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:52 amSince I gave you no hat tip and you discovered Dr. Frudakis on your own, I thought you were thanking me for being your Muse in the opening to your post. ;
Frudakis may be over-ambitious. I would like to see a study he has done when he did not know the phenotype and the demographic of the sample. He may just be making inspired guesses. To continue the Homeric theme: Timeo Danos et dona ferentes.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/17/2007 @ 8:00 pmI can’t spell any better in Latin than in English. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/17/2007 @ 8:01 pmGranted it’s a small sample size but the linked article did include this:
DRJ (67ced6) — 10/17/2007 @ 8:09 pmThe stakes just got higher.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/17/2007 @ 8:37 pmShoulda quoted the last two paras:
1) This guy clearly has no scientific clue. Barring twins, etc., DNA is unique to each person. Genetic markers that indicate the racial derivation of an individual tell us nothing about the characteristics of the entire race of which the individual is a member — except the race’s geographic origin, and that only by inference from other data.
2) Did Mr. Clayton think he’d been appointed as a special prosecutor of white people? Because he sure seems to have had an “initial” problem getting his mind around the idea that a “white guy” doing forensics might just go where the scientific evidence led him. We derive facial characteristics from our parents, for God’s sake; of course we derive racial ones as well.
3) Back to the appalling scientific cluelessness: “We’ve been taught that we’re all the same, that we bleed the same blood. If you subscribe to the (Frudakis) theory, you’re saying we are inherently unequal.” Well, yes, if by “unequal” you mean “different.” “[W]e bleed the same blood”? I’m thinking Mr. Clayton may (and should!) have trouble convincing a jury to convict a B-negative defendant if the perpetrator’s blood type is known to be A-positive.
4) “If I could push a button and make this technology disappear, I would.” Okay…but why? Despite having seen the technology accurately describe (not “predict,” describe, and if you can’t grasp the difference, please resume playing with your Magic 8 Ball) the racial derivation of an individual to whom the DNA belonged — despite having had ample opportunity to learn that the technology relates to nothing beyond the specific characteristics of an individual — Mr. Clayton appears to be implying that the technology has Dangerous Racial Implications. I’m sensing some dangerous racial implications my ownself. If I could push a button and make a certain law license disappear, I would. might. would certainly give that option some serious consideration.
porkopolitan (c9ae6a) — 10/17/2007 @ 9:56 pmWhat you get for blindly accessing options that you knew didn’t work because others had already described their failure. Let’s see if this works. (If it does, it’s because the “strike” tag should contain the actual word “strike” rather than just an “s”. Let this be a lesson to us all.)
If I could push a button and make a certain law license disappear, I
porkopolitan (c9ae6a) — 10/17/2007 @ 10:06 pmwould.might.would certainly give that option some serious consideration.This discussion is rapidly becoming moot. In 5 or 10 generations any differences will be eliminated anyway. The peoples of the world intermingle, intermarry, and mix up the gene pool. Anbd, our lifetyles, economies, nutrition, etc. are all becoming more homogenous.
Clearly, physical attributes (height, weight, skin color, eye color, etc) can be predicted based on genetic characteristics related to race.
Further, it appears that other attributes such as athletic ability, longevity, and susceptibility to various illnesses can also be correlated to race.
Given that, it should neither surprise nor offend anyone that specific mental attributes (say pattern recognition, detail orientation) can be correlated to race?
However, to turn that into one race being “more stupid” that another not reasonable, if for no other reason than there is no clear scientific definition of “stupid”. It is a slur, not a measurable characteristic.
I agree with those who have called out Clayton … where does it say (or how can one conclude) that “different” means “unequal”?
tomjedrz (562284) — 10/18/2007 @ 9:18 amThink this might replace eHarmony.com?
Whitehall (86528e) — 10/18/2007 @ 10:20 amPorkpolitan,
I did mention the concerns of law enforcement:
DRJ (67ced6) — 10/18/2007 @ 10:21 am