.png)
In CSI, the phenomenally successful television show about forensic science, DNA evidence is usually presented as something of a clincher. It's often said that a crime-scene sample that matches a suspect's genetic fingerprint leaves only a one in a million chance that he or she is innocent, and this sort of evidence is often among the most likely to convince judges and juries.
The police and the Home Office see it as so valuable and reliable that they want the Police National DNA Database to retain samples from people who are arrested but never convicted, even though the European Court of Human Rights has ruled this unlawful.
Since it was developed by Sir Alec Jeffreys in 1984, DNA fingerprinting has indeed helped to solve thousands of crimes, both convicting the guilty and exonerating the innocent. But valuable as it is, it is no more infallible than any other investigational tool. A fresh reason why has been highlighted this week by the New York Times, with a story suggesting that genetic evidence can easily be faked.
The police and the Home Office see it as so valuable and reliable that they want the Police National DNA Database to retain samples from people who are arrested but never convicted, even though the European Court of Human Rights has ruled this unlawful.
Since it was developed by Sir Alec Jeffreys in 1984, DNA fingerprinting has indeed helped to solve thousands of crimes, both convicting the guilty and exonerating the innocent. But valuable as it is, it is no more infallible than any other investigational tool. A fresh reason why has been highlighted this week by the New York Times, with a story suggesting that genetic evidence can easily be faked.
