Comments | caspian_x: here comes the science

caspian_x

here comes the science

Oct 05, 2007 16:40

Excellent article from Wired: The Inconvenient Science of Racial DNA ProfilingIn 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 ( Read more... )

profiling, science, race, dna

Comments 5

aliendial October 5 2007, 23:56:15 UTC

It's scary to have racial markers define you. I think this guy misspoke, but I also think he's afraid of the guy with a black great grandmother, whose genes declare him part black, starting a witch hunt for blacks in white pickup trucks. It's not a question of the precision of the science. It's what the public could do with the kind of information this generates. A racial marker that says he's sub-saharan african suggests dark skin. The actual guy may not be dark skinned at all. Witch hunts are scary and dangerous and much to be avoided.

kaali_thara October 6 2007, 01:11:11 UTC

Sir Bedevere: What makes you think she's a witch?
Peasant: Well, she turned me into a newt!
Sir Bedevere: A newt?
Peasant: ... I got better.

Burn her anyway!

thebruce0 October 6 2007, 01:24:11 UTC

...But she has got a wart!

So, if she weighs as much as a duck, then she's..made of wood.
And therefore?
... ...A witch!

man, one of the best MP scenes ever :D

caspian_x October 8 2007, 12:19:15 UTC

"A racial marker that says he's sub-saharan african suggests dark skin. The actual guy may not be dark skinned at all."

But when the DNA identifies 85% sub-saharan African and 15% Native American? That's quite a bit more descriptive than simply saying "he's African" or "he's black". I would guess that level of precision would lead to fairly accurate physical descriptions. And judging by the guys track record in the article, I think that guess would be right.

(The comment has been removed)

caspian_x October 8 2007, 12:17:15 UTC

I dunno. He wasn't simply saying "white" or "black". He narrowed it down to 85% sub-saharan African and 15% Native American. It would seem to me that would lead to some fairly accurate physical descriptions, at least as accurate as, say, the witness who caught a glimpse of the guy leaving, saw that he had dark skin and said he was "black" when he was really Middle-Eastern. I mean, you have guesswork and inaccuracy either way. And this guy got 22 people right, including 2 killers.

So, let's take the word "race" out of it then. This guy can analyze a sample of DNA and identify, very specifically, the ethnic lineages of a person, including percentages of each one, which can lead to a fair guess at physical characteristics. How is this not at least as fair, if not more so, than basing an entire investigation based on a witness who saw the suspect for less than 2 seconds and identified his skin color, especially considering that the witness could have racism coloring his perceptions?