here comes the science
Excellent article from Wired: The Inconvenient Science of Racial DNA Profiling
In the article, The FBI, Louisiana State Police, Baton Rouge Police Department are all searching for a serial killer they believe to be a white man. They spend over a million dollars and test DNA of over 1200 white men. They investigate for months. Nothing.
Finally, they turned to Tony Frudakis, a molecular biologist who claimed he could determine the killer's race by his DNA. He claimed that based solely on the DNA, the killer was 85 percent Sub-Saharan African and 15 percent native American. The investigators changed their strategy and two months later apprehended the killer.
Why, you ask, didn't they have the racial data right away? The DNA Indexing system that police use to run new DNA against DNA of past offenders was deliberately designed to exclude genetic markers that point to a racial profile, to avoid a political firestorm.
Here's the second-last paragraph of the article:
But even the people one might think should be his biggest allies aren't supporting that, including Tony Clayton, the special prosecutor who tried one of the Baton Rouge murder cases. Clayton, who is black, admits that he initially dismissed Frudakis as some white guy trying to substantiate his racist views. He no longer believes that and says "had it not been for Frudakis, we would still be looking for the white guy in the white pick-up truck." But then he adds, "We've been taught that we're all the same, that we bleed the same blood. If you subscribe to the (Frudakis) theory, you're saying we are inherently unequal."
What? How does determining race by DNA say that we're inherently unequal? I don't get that at all.
Here's where I ask for your thoughts.
What do you think of this technology? Should DNA at a crime scene be read to determine the suspect's race (bear in mind, Frudakis claims 99% accuracy)? Can you explain to me what the heck Clayton is talking about in the above paragraph?
Yes, I know this could be controversial, but I've decided to keep the Ronald Che-gan icon for political posts. While this has a political spin to it, it's more about science and political correctness than the normal conservative rant for which I reserve the Che-gan icon.
In the article, The FBI, Louisiana State Police, Baton Rouge Police Department are all searching for a serial killer they believe to be a white man. They spend over a million dollars and test DNA of over 1200 white men. They investigate for months. Nothing.
Finally, they turned to Tony Frudakis, a molecular biologist who claimed he could determine the killer's race by his DNA. He claimed that based solely on the DNA, the killer was 85 percent Sub-Saharan African and 15 percent native American. The investigators changed their strategy and two months later apprehended the killer.
Why, you ask, didn't they have the racial data right away? The DNA Indexing system that police use to run new DNA against DNA of past offenders was deliberately designed to exclude genetic markers that point to a racial profile, to avoid a political firestorm.
Here's the second-last paragraph of the article:
But even the people one might think should be his biggest allies aren't supporting that, including Tony Clayton, the special prosecutor who tried one of the Baton Rouge murder cases. Clayton, who is black, admits that he initially dismissed Frudakis as some white guy trying to substantiate his racist views. He no longer believes that and says "had it not been for Frudakis, we would still be looking for the white guy in the white pick-up truck." But then he adds, "We've been taught that we're all the same, that we bleed the same blood. If you subscribe to the (Frudakis) theory, you're saying we are inherently unequal."
What? How does determining race by DNA say that we're inherently unequal? I don't get that at all.
Here's where I ask for your thoughts.
What do you think of this technology? Should DNA at a crime scene be read to determine the suspect's race (bear in mind, Frudakis claims 99% accuracy)? Can you explain to me what the heck Clayton is talking about in the above paragraph?
Yes, I know this could be controversial, but I've decided to keep the Ronald Che-gan icon for political posts. While this has a political spin to it, it's more about science and political correctness than the normal conservative rant for which I reserve the Che-gan icon.