17 analysts from accredited forensic laboratories in North America, 1 mixed DNA sample, completely different results!
The blinded study by Itiel Dror and Greg Hampikian shows that some analysts identified individuals as possible DNA sources, while others completely excluded the same individuals. The analysis is subjective and depends on the methods, interpretations and prejudices of the analysts.
Source: Next Level, Telegram
Influence through case information
When analysts were given information about suspects, this significantly influenced their analysis. The same analysts changed their original statements after receiving additional case information and suddenly evaluated the same DNA sample differently. Biases (conscious or unconscious) mean that supposedly “objective science” is in reality characterised by external influences and uncertainties.
According to the study, only 1 out of 17 analysts agreed with the initial assessment that the suspect “cannot be excluded”. The remaining 16 analysts came to different conclusions: 12 excluded the suspect and 4 assessed the sample as “inconclusive”.
The informative value of DNA tests
These results emphasise the subjectivity and the influence of contextual information when analysing mixed DNA samples.
No surprise for experts in genetics. A shock for laymen.
Conclusion
Genetics in forensic analysis turns out to be a purely subjective and non-standardised process. Anyone who considers this method to be scientific is ignoring reality.
When 17 analysts from accredited forensic laboratories come to completely different conclusions from the same DNA sample, it becomes clear that what is sold as scientific certainty is ultimately just subjective guesswork with serious consequences in many areas of life❗️
Reference: Dror IE, Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci Justice. 2011;51(4):204-208. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004)
Dr Itiel Dror, a renowned cognitive scientist with a Ph.D. from Harvard University, researches decision-making and cognitive biases in forensics at University College London. Dr Greg Hampikian, Professor at Boise State University and Director of the Idaho Innocence Project, is a leading expert in forensic DNA analysis in the USA and is committed to the exoneration of innocent convicts.
How do “DNA” analyses actually work?
🔍 What is being compared there?
❌ When can mistakes happen?
🔬 Which scientific standards are decisive for objectivity?
In this short video, Dan Krane, a renowned molecular biologist and expert in DNA analysis, uses a real case to explain why DNA analysis is often subjective and not an exact science, as well as the most important background to it.
🔹 The results depend not only on the “DNA” itself, but also to a large extent on the interpretation by the person analysing it.
🚨 Experimental blinding could significantly reduce bias, but is rejected by many crime labs and law enforcement agencies.
⚠️ A system that ignores basic scientific standards such as blinding jeopardises legal certainty and undermines fair trials.
🎬 New Medicine Library (source, German subtitle)
Stay critical and informed: