Oh man. The Bigfoot hunters are gonna go nuts over this tech. Cryptozoologists too - there’s some recent supposed sightings of the Tasmanian Tiger that have been getting a lot of attention.
“Who knew DNA could be so blurry”
Until it gives very negative results, unless they figure out how to read it badly enough to get ambiguous ones.
Actually, the latter is probably true. A bad sample of human DNA outside of the range of other primates could be the equivalent of a blurry photograph.
Some GATACA shit where I gotta make sure I don’t shed any DNA
Really cool tech, I wonder if law enforcement could use it to detect a range of time someone has been at the scene of a crime based on the concentration of dna found. Could really help solve some crimes when you’ve got no leads.
Forensic sciences are in general a big scam used by prosecutors to put innocent people on jail. Hope this dosen’t become the new “hair evidence”.
There’s a big difference between DNA testing and things like “body language science,” and polygraph testing.
Like a massive gulf.
Yeah, the American Bar Association said “Telling a jury it is implausible that anyone besides the suspect would have the same DNA test results is seldom, if ever, justified.”
Cross contamination could likelyonly get worse if you include airborn or otherwise mobile DNA as part of your samples.
I find myself waking up in an even stranger world than the one I left the night before.
It’s one thing to understand that while surfing the Internet you expose yourself to being monitored, it’s quite another to take a walk around the park and have someone trying to ‘sniff out’ your movement and potentially your identity.
Are there people who don’t really understand the implications of this?
This is really exciting tech. The potential for this is huge, especially when this data is compared with other population estimates, which should get it more accurate. All while being non-invasive to the species.
I think one of the most interesting applications of this technology is linking suspects to crimes. One of the key pieces of evidence used in convictions is proving that the suspect was at the scene of the crime. If they can’t provide a solid alibi, or reason for them to have been there, then they’re basically screwed.
Another is to find out who was at a protest the institutions in power deemed unacceptable :)
Hopefully, it can also be used to prove that someone was not at the scene of a crime, enabling prosecutors to rule out suspects and innocent people to get off.
This is terrifiying.
It sounds like it’s literally just catching hairs and things like that, though. We already knew we leave DNA samples everywhere, so that’s not more scary than DNA analysis already was.
I think when this tech is matured it will just another standard procedure, but from the current state of forensics it’s pretty wild to think about regardless. It’s kind of scary, but it also kind of feels like organic progression.
Need an aquatic version for Nessie.
That actually happened a while back - https://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago717609.html
