Dna Fingerprinting On Trial Summary

DNA Fingerprinting on Trial is an article written in 1989 by Ian Evett, Peter Gill, and two others. The article begins by introducing what DNA is and discussing briefly what restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) are, as well as how they are measured with an electrophoresis gel. According to the authors, forensic RFLP testing at this time was being “pioneered” by two laboratories and used by the FBI. The authors then go on to say they believe “the scientific community [has] failed to set rigorous standards to which courts, attorneys and forensic-testing laboratories can look for guidance.” Essentially, the authors think that the techniques used in 1989 for forensic DNA analysis are inadequate and they discuss certain situations in

Each section of the article was clearly labeled, and the topics were fairly easy to understand. The topics within the paper were each given discussed for a good amount of time, and the authors stayed focused throughout the article as well. A majority of the article was giving specific examples of how Lifecode was not effective at doing their job and how many mistakes they made and lies they told. Although it may not have been the authors’ intentions, this section of the paper starts to frighten the reader because it really makes them realize how inadequate DNA fingerprinting was in 1989. People’s lives were depending on this DNA analysis and the lab couldn’t even keep track of who gave blood samples where. This is terrifying, and the authors are able to emphasize all of the things that went wrong, clearly stating how they were wrong. The thesis and conclusion of the article were exceptionally strong, which really helped the reader keep in mind the issues that were being discussed and the greater purpose of the paper. The scientific evidence presented in the paper makes the information seem very trustworthy and the way that the authors discuss the problems clearly displays that they know what they’re talking

One of the main weaknesses was the fact that the authors continued to begin sentences and ideas with “in my opinion” and “personally, I …” Although this paper is focusing on how the authors believe DNA analysis needs some guidelines, the paper seems very unprofessional when they speak like this. Another weakness was that almost the entire article was spent talking about Lifecode and the Castro case. The cases that were discussed at the end were far more interesting and they should have been discussed a little more in detail. Picking examples to discuss in detail from multiple cases would have emphasized the point better because it would have shown that these mistakes happened in many cases, not just one particular one. The authors also waited until the very end of the article to discuss just how important DNA analysis was in saving people’s lives. Introducing this earlier in the article, to show the audience how DNA analysis could save or kill someone, would have made the readers keep this in mind and really be shocked at all of the mistakes Lifecode was making. Overall, this article was very good, but a few things could have been