This is the level to which blame game goes on. Please read the story on the link below and read my comments on the fact of the issue.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/CDFD-to-guide-cops-on-forensic-evidence/articleshow/9252360.cms
MY COMMENTS
This story of CDFD blaming cops of not being able to collect samples is a perfect synonym for the hindi adage "NACHNE NAHI AAYA THO AANGAN THEDA". In fact CDFD forgot that me and NICFS, New Delhi held training programs regularly at NICFS for training Police of all states in sample collection. The manual was already authored by me and is being used by several Police Departments of various states. The so called manual or module is just going to be old wine in new bottle. In fact it is the CDFD which needs to pull up its socks in wake of reports that DNA reports contain typographical errors (as told to the Court by CBI in Aarushi Case) and further not having enough DNA testing expertise to establish identity of the dead bodies in the Mangalore Air Crash (as the family of Naveed Ibrahim Siraj from Udupi , who died in air crash at Bajpe, had refused to take the body of Naveed to their home, saying that the body identified is not of Naveed). Therefore releasing statements once in a way by the CDFD in the media will not add any value to the controversial DNA reports being trashed out by the public. The merit of the DNA testing is to make it stand on the floor of the trial and Apex Courts and not in the media.
A blog to spread information and give updates on DNA testing in India for benefit of Medico-legal experts, Doctors, public and Advocates.
Showing posts with label dna testing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dna testing. Show all posts
17 July, 2011
30 March, 2011
DNA Fingerprinting and Wildlife Forensics
An important goal of the conservation management programs in Wildlife of the critically endangered species is the determination of parentage and levels of genetic diversity within the remaining population. Such determination is possible, with high rate of success, is by use of DNA based methods. Every living life form on earth contains the most basic building blocks of life – the Deoxyribonucleic Acid or DNA, which provides them their biological identity either as an individual, a species or a population as well as their geographical origin and evolutionary history. Using the understanding of DNA science, coupled with the presence of efficient molecular techniques to examine information in DNA markers (segments of DNA in the genome of organisms that reveal variations), biological information can be tapped, revealing otherwise unreachable information at all levels of life. Furthermore, with the support of specific statistical tools and bioinformatics to analyse DNA data, inferences about the biology of organisms can be done, thus providing essential details for evolutionary, population and conservation biology.
Wildlife forensics is a relatively new method for law enforcement around the world and has not yet caught up the attention of Indian wildlife experts. It uses the same principles as human forensics, with a few modifications. The difference is that wildlife forensics needs to be able to identify and distinguish between a variety of species, whereas human forensics is concerned with just one species – Homo sapiens. The advent and application DNA fingerprinting (in the mid 1980’s) has been essential for both wildlife and human forensics.
The aim of wildlife forensics is to provide information for the conclusive identification of the animal carcass, for conviction of offenders, and hopefully deter these acts. It is also active in various molecular genetic research aiding wildlife management and conservation.
DNA fingerprinting allows for the identification of an individual or species. DNA sample sizes may be too small, so DNA amplification techniques may be applied. This involves the amplification of the small amount of DNA wherein in a short period of time the amount of DNA is greatly amplified. DNA fingerprinting allows the questioned wildlife sample can be confirmed with a match to the standard sample maintained in the laboratory.
DNA fingerprinting is useful in Wildlife management in several ways including;
• individual identification for matching tissue samples from an illegal kill site to samples associated with suspect.
• species identification of unknown tissue samples involved in illegal commercialization and poaching
• includes identification of mixed game products - packed meats
• sex identification to enforce the violations of the wildlife acts
• parentage analysis for captive breeding programs
• applying a non-invasive DNA sexing method (through the use of feathers) on birds. For the success of breeding efforts {as birds of both sexes do not show any distinct differences in their external morphology (sexual dimorphism) at their juvenile stage as well as at their adult stage}.
The law requires that guilt of an accused under Wildlife protection acts be established beyond a reasonable doubt. To do this, the prosecution needs either eyewitness testimony or physical evidence. The Wildlife laboratories can provide this physical evidence and serious violations of wildlife laws can be investigated and prosecuted. The U.S. has a national lab, and Canada has various labs across the country and India has none except for a research lab – LaCones at Hyderabad. One of the longest running ones is The Wildlife Forensics DNA Laboratory at Trent University in Ontario, Canada. It was the first lab to produce DNA evidence to be accepted into a North American court involving a wildlife violation. In India the most important case to have caught the attention of Wildlife experts was the Salman Khan Black Buck case wherein I had conclusively proved that the carcass exhumed after postmortem was indeed a black buck and not a deer as some assumed it to be. Now the US handles over 50 cases a year, providing convictions with fines, whereas in India it is a dismal 2 cases per year with cases still being under trial.
There is a need to conduct more molecular genetics research for wildlife management and conservation. The question many of you may ask is what is the use of Genetic Consequences? Or what connection does wildlife forensics have with conservation and genetics? Well at the out set it gives you direction in possible increase in population size with a decrease in animals hunted, increase population size, decrease possibility of inbreeding, increase heterozygosity and in turn, increase fitness. Current research on the population structure of a highly endangered local freshwater crocodile (Tomistoma schlegelii) using DNA based methods to infer bio-geographical distribution of the species range within Malaysia and South East Asia is yielding important results.
A Forensic wildlife laboratory will also receive analysis costs from other organizations and research grants. It then provides information that can aid in the prosecution of an offender, who then pays a fine to the government. Further, in the future, similar techniques that are used in the human genome project could be transferred to wildlife forensics, and automation will be the key. Studies of populations using past genetic information and comparing it to present and future genetic information with the assistance of DNA databases could provide knowledge any genetic impact of wildlife forensics. It is important to note that other aspects could also affect the outcome, and these need to be taken into consideration when drawing inferences. Therefore the need of the hour is that all the Officers of the Indian Forest Service and Conservators of Forests should unite to demand for Forensic Wildlife Laboratories to meet the requirement for better Wildlife conservation.
Wildlife forensics is a relatively new method for law enforcement around the world and has not yet caught up the attention of Indian wildlife experts. It uses the same principles as human forensics, with a few modifications. The difference is that wildlife forensics needs to be able to identify and distinguish between a variety of species, whereas human forensics is concerned with just one species – Homo sapiens. The advent and application DNA fingerprinting (in the mid 1980’s) has been essential for both wildlife and human forensics.
The aim of wildlife forensics is to provide information for the conclusive identification of the animal carcass, for conviction of offenders, and hopefully deter these acts. It is also active in various molecular genetic research aiding wildlife management and conservation.
DNA fingerprinting allows for the identification of an individual or species. DNA sample sizes may be too small, so DNA amplification techniques may be applied. This involves the amplification of the small amount of DNA wherein in a short period of time the amount of DNA is greatly amplified. DNA fingerprinting allows the questioned wildlife sample can be confirmed with a match to the standard sample maintained in the laboratory.
DNA fingerprinting is useful in Wildlife management in several ways including;
• individual identification for matching tissue samples from an illegal kill site to samples associated with suspect.
• species identification of unknown tissue samples involved in illegal commercialization and poaching
• includes identification of mixed game products - packed meats
• sex identification to enforce the violations of the wildlife acts
• parentage analysis for captive breeding programs
• applying a non-invasive DNA sexing method (through the use of feathers) on birds. For the success of breeding efforts {as birds of both sexes do not show any distinct differences in their external morphology (sexual dimorphism) at their juvenile stage as well as at their adult stage}.
The law requires that guilt of an accused under Wildlife protection acts be established beyond a reasonable doubt. To do this, the prosecution needs either eyewitness testimony or physical evidence. The Wildlife laboratories can provide this physical evidence and serious violations of wildlife laws can be investigated and prosecuted. The U.S. has a national lab, and Canada has various labs across the country and India has none except for a research lab – LaCones at Hyderabad. One of the longest running ones is The Wildlife Forensics DNA Laboratory at Trent University in Ontario, Canada. It was the first lab to produce DNA evidence to be accepted into a North American court involving a wildlife violation. In India the most important case to have caught the attention of Wildlife experts was the Salman Khan Black Buck case wherein I had conclusively proved that the carcass exhumed after postmortem was indeed a black buck and not a deer as some assumed it to be. Now the US handles over 50 cases a year, providing convictions with fines, whereas in India it is a dismal 2 cases per year with cases still being under trial.
There is a need to conduct more molecular genetics research for wildlife management and conservation. The question many of you may ask is what is the use of Genetic Consequences? Or what connection does wildlife forensics have with conservation and genetics? Well at the out set it gives you direction in possible increase in population size with a decrease in animals hunted, increase population size, decrease possibility of inbreeding, increase heterozygosity and in turn, increase fitness. Current research on the population structure of a highly endangered local freshwater crocodile (Tomistoma schlegelii) using DNA based methods to infer bio-geographical distribution of the species range within Malaysia and South East Asia is yielding important results.
A Forensic wildlife laboratory will also receive analysis costs from other organizations and research grants. It then provides information that can aid in the prosecution of an offender, who then pays a fine to the government. Further, in the future, similar techniques that are used in the human genome project could be transferred to wildlife forensics, and automation will be the key. Studies of populations using past genetic information and comparing it to present and future genetic information with the assistance of DNA databases could provide knowledge any genetic impact of wildlife forensics. It is important to note that other aspects could also affect the outcome, and these need to be taken into consideration when drawing inferences. Therefore the need of the hour is that all the Officers of the Indian Forest Service and Conservators of Forests should unite to demand for Forensic Wildlife Laboratories to meet the requirement for better Wildlife conservation.
08 February, 2011
How long can Investigations fail for lack of expertise
Its been a year since an innocent child, Naga Vaishnavi, was supposedly killed and body burnt in a furnace in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India. This was a sensation in February 2010 and the then Government of Andhra Pradesh went all out to arrest the culprits and jail them. The Hon'ble Home Minister too promised a Fast Track Trial in the case. Recent news was that the possibility of the case ending on a better note is doubtful since the charred remains of a body recovered from the furnace could not be conclusively established by DNA experts as that of the deceased child Vaishnavi. This, if true, is really sad since DNA technology is available to identify victims even if their bodies have got burnt beyond recognition. Police in Surrey UK, have identified the charred remains found in a Surrey ravine in November 2010 as those of 34-year-old Tara Lynn Westgarde. It makes us only wonder that if they can do why can't we? Frankly we can do better but our system of Governance does not allow it to happen.
We can't help drawing comparisons between Aarushi case and this Naga Vaishnavi case since both cases suffer from a common reason and that is 'lack of expertise' on part of prosecution experts. The experts need to realise that their lack of interest in their profession and disinclination to upgrade their working knowledge to the latest developments in the DNA field hampers investigations and lead to dismissal of prosecution of a true case against an accused person. Such developments leads to two fold disadvantage to the society at large. Firstly a criminal gets scot free and a potential killer is let off with a license to commit more heinous crimes on innocents. Secondly the confidence of the relatives of the victims on the Criminal Justice System and law of the land gets eroded due to such closure of the case to the benefit of the accused. Worse can also happen when Police investigating a Crime case may not collect evidence due to their lack of confidence on the DNA experts to give a conclusive evidence.
The expert's duty should be beyond fear or favor. Their are lessons which we need to learn from the 9/11 attack in New York. The attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 challenged the then current approaches to forensic DNA typing methods. The large number of victims and the extreme thermal and physical conditions of the site necessitated special approaches to the DNA-based identification. Because of these and many additional challenges, new procedures were created or modified from routine forensic protocols. This effort facilitated the identification of 1594 of the 2749 victims. I have always campaigned that in case we cannot develop something new, their is nothing wrong to adopt available technologies, after following due procedure, to reach to a conclusion. However the recent happenings so early this year of 2011 has made so called DNA experts to submit their less than helpful DNA reports without working much on polishing their DNA technologies to help the cases. This kind of approach on part of our DNA experts also points out to their lack of skills and expertise as otherwise a simple search of literature with such advanced technology being available in today's world with respect to searching and retrieving of information can solve so many problems. The DNA world today is boosted by statistical and technological advances such as DNA microarray sequencing, TFT biosensors, machine learning algorithms, in particular Bayesian networks, which provide an effective way of evidence organization and inference.
My call is that those experts processing such cases must consider the way in which to approach the analysis, and then carefully extract and organize samples accordingly, before they decide to give in their report which should benefit the Trier of Justice i.e., the Hon'ble Trial Court Judge. Yesterday it was Aarushi and today it is that of Naga Vaishnavi and tomorrow it could be of someone who is dear to any of us who may disappear from the memory of this World without getting due Justice. We should brace ourselves up so that this should not keep happening again and again and its time to rejuvenate the Forensic DNA System and we cannot allow such lack of expertise of the experts to hamper Criminal Case investigations.
We can't help drawing comparisons between Aarushi case and this Naga Vaishnavi case since both cases suffer from a common reason and that is 'lack of expertise' on part of prosecution experts. The experts need to realise that their lack of interest in their profession and disinclination to upgrade their working knowledge to the latest developments in the DNA field hampers investigations and lead to dismissal of prosecution of a true case against an accused person. Such developments leads to two fold disadvantage to the society at large. Firstly a criminal gets scot free and a potential killer is let off with a license to commit more heinous crimes on innocents. Secondly the confidence of the relatives of the victims on the Criminal Justice System and law of the land gets eroded due to such closure of the case to the benefit of the accused. Worse can also happen when Police investigating a Crime case may not collect evidence due to their lack of confidence on the DNA experts to give a conclusive evidence.
The expert's duty should be beyond fear or favor. Their are lessons which we need to learn from the 9/11 attack in New York. The attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 challenged the then current approaches to forensic DNA typing methods. The large number of victims and the extreme thermal and physical conditions of the site necessitated special approaches to the DNA-based identification. Because of these and many additional challenges, new procedures were created or modified from routine forensic protocols. This effort facilitated the identification of 1594 of the 2749 victims. I have always campaigned that in case we cannot develop something new, their is nothing wrong to adopt available technologies, after following due procedure, to reach to a conclusion. However the recent happenings so early this year of 2011 has made so called DNA experts to submit their less than helpful DNA reports without working much on polishing their DNA technologies to help the cases. This kind of approach on part of our DNA experts also points out to their lack of skills and expertise as otherwise a simple search of literature with such advanced technology being available in today's world with respect to searching and retrieving of information can solve so many problems. The DNA world today is boosted by statistical and technological advances such as DNA microarray sequencing, TFT biosensors, machine learning algorithms, in particular Bayesian networks, which provide an effective way of evidence organization and inference.
My call is that those experts processing such cases must consider the way in which to approach the analysis, and then carefully extract and organize samples accordingly, before they decide to give in their report which should benefit the Trier of Justice i.e., the Hon'ble Trial Court Judge. Yesterday it was Aarushi and today it is that of Naga Vaishnavi and tomorrow it could be of someone who is dear to any of us who may disappear from the memory of this World without getting due Justice. We should brace ourselves up so that this should not keep happening again and again and its time to rejuvenate the Forensic DNA System and we cannot allow such lack of expertise of the experts to hamper Criminal Case investigations.
10 January, 2011
DNA experts failed Aarushi and misled the CBI
This blog comes after convincing myself, that inappropriate advice and lack of direction from so-called DNA experts of the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics or CDFD, Hyderabad has led CBI to get placed in such difficult state of affairs in the Aarushi Case. The foremost point of consideration is that the so-called experts were not experienced enough in Forensic DNA testing, but are qualified in Microbiology and Silk Worm Genetics and they do not possess any Forensic Science qualifications. (Read about their expertise at the link: http://cdfd.org.in/inside htmls/staff.html).Simply they are not aware that mixtures of DNA contamination need to be handled by experienced experts and not by any scientist just because he has read genetics. The CBI was grossly misled by the CDFD to believe that “TOUCH DNA TEST” would not be useful in coming to a conclusion. How did the CDFD realise that the samples in the Aarushi case were contaminated without actually testing the crime scene samples. It only goes to show that DNA experts just issued statements like politicians and walked away with it. Therefore CDFD to hide its inability to handle the case further misled CBI to believe that TOUCH DNA TEST would not yield results. The CDFD failed to update its knowledge and infrastructure in DNA Testing which could have helped to generate evidence in the Aarushi Case. I put forth an open challenge to DNA experts to an open debate on this subject because I am sure of my expertise and since I have used Touch DNA test before and its results were upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court too.
Media reports regarding DNA tests done at Hyderabad reads "The CBI claim comes even as preliminary reports from Hyderabad's Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, according to sources, suggested that identifying whose blood was on the T-shirt may or may not be possible. Doubts stem from the opinion of experts that separating DNA fingerprints from garment after so many days is not always possible, because red blood cells on the cloth start disintegrating".
(Read more at :The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CBI-still-has-no-real-proof-in-Aarushi-case/articleshow/3251910.cms#ixzz1Ac9uNYBl)
Nothing can be more unintelligent than this. The whole world knows and even a Middle school child knows today, that DNA can be isolated from extinct Dinosaur fossils which are more than 50 million year old. And our 'EXPERTS' say that 2 month old stain does not yield intact DNA.
In this regard, I request that some investigating authority within the CBI to peruse the case files pertaining to Magunta Subbarami Reddy murder case of Ongole wherein I, as a DNA expert had given a conclusive report by similar testing in 1990’s, despite the samples being contaminated by other human samples. The strong evidence was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well, and the accused were sentenced for life.
What CBI did not realise was that different levels of experience and training plays a part in effective mixture interpretation and it is very Scientist specific and frankly CDFD does not have it. Untalented and inexperienced Scientists of India have failed Aarushi. May her soul rest in peace.
Media reports regarding DNA tests done at Hyderabad reads "The CBI claim comes even as preliminary reports from Hyderabad's Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, according to sources, suggested that identifying whose blood was on the T-shirt may or may not be possible. Doubts stem from the opinion of experts that separating DNA fingerprints from garment after so many days is not always possible, because red blood cells on the cloth start disintegrating".
(Read more at :The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CBI-still-has-no-real-proof-in-Aarushi-case/articleshow/3251910.cms#ixzz1Ac9uNYBl)
Nothing can be more unintelligent than this. The whole world knows and even a Middle school child knows today, that DNA can be isolated from extinct Dinosaur fossils which are more than 50 million year old. And our 'EXPERTS' say that 2 month old stain does not yield intact DNA.
In this regard, I request that some investigating authority within the CBI to peruse the case files pertaining to Magunta Subbarami Reddy murder case of Ongole wherein I, as a DNA expert had given a conclusive report by similar testing in 1990’s, despite the samples being contaminated by other human samples. The strong evidence was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well, and the accused were sentenced for life.
What CBI did not realise was that different levels of experience and training plays a part in effective mixture interpretation and it is very Scientist specific and frankly CDFD does not have it. Untalented and inexperienced Scientists of India have failed Aarushi. May her soul rest in peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)