… by criminals.
In experiments, a team of Israeli scientists were able to obliterate all traces of DNA from a blood sample and add someone else’s genetic material in its place*
Interesting. However assuming this is true :
Then it’s not likely to become much of a problem for some time. Assuming that Dr Tully isn’t just playing down the problem naturally. But it’s certainly something to keep in mind, since biotechnology is advancing all the time, and what takes a big elaborate setup now might fit in a box in twenty years.
Seems like it would be easier just to bring some random stranger’s genetic material with you to the heist. Maybe pass through a barbershop on the way – pick up some hair follicles. Acquiring skin cells and or blood samples is left as an exercise for the reader.
Let’s see… I have the chemistry set my granddad gave me when I was seven, some nail clippers, and a biology textbook. Will that do? I can start my career as an arch criminal!
I think it is more likely the researchers who conducted the study are exaggerating the risk, based on this part of the article:
The real problem I see with this is that it could make juries no longer think DNA is as great as they do now.
Like with the DNA evidence with the OJ Simpsons criminal murder trial. Many jurors interviewed afterwards, seemed to indicate they didn’t really understand what DNA was or how it was used. (At least two said something along the lines like "So what, lots of people have the same blood type.)
If you can convince people DNA isn’t as accurate as it is, (and frankly it’s probably now represented as more accurate than it is, in many cases), then people will simply dismiss it.
Indeed I was reading a Chicago Tribune article and district attorneys in Illinois have said with the publicity of DNA many DAs are saying they have more trouble getting a conviction if they cannot produce conclusive DNA evidence, even if everything else points toward guilt.
So I went and found the paper in which this study was formally reported (not the press release); basically, the idea is to use PCR to amplify the entire genome of the person you wish to implicate, then swab it around the crime scene (with or without added DNA-depleted blood for verisimilitude). This is not something your average Joe off the street is likely to be capable of, although if you have a spare $50,000 or so to buy the necessary equipment and reagents, a reasonably competent high-school student could be trained to do the actual PCR in a month or two. As Finagle points out, you can get pretty much the same effect right now and much cheaper if you can get your hands on skin/hair/blood samples from the person you want to see in jail, plus the real thing would not be vulnerable to the author’s fake-DNA detection scheme.
I believe that’s called the CSI Effect, when juries can’t understand why the cops didn’t just blow up and de-pixellate the CCTV footage, or why the DNA evidence wasn’t tested in 24 hours and found to be a 100 percent match. God help us all if a lawyer introduces the case/information in the OP to a trial resting on DNA evidence.